(Maspero, G.) Trinity and Man Gregory of Nyssa

Trinity and Man
Supplements
to
Vigiliae Christianae
Formerly Philosophia Patrum
Text and Studies of Early
Christian Life and Language
Editors
J. den Boeft J. van Oort W.L. Petersen

D.T. Runia C. Scholten J.C.M. van Winden
VOLUME 86
Trinity and Man

Gregory of Nyssas Ad Ablabium
By
Giulio Maspero
LEIDEN BOSTON
2007
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
ISSN 0920-623x
ISBN 978 90 04 15872 6
Copyright 2007 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission
from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by
Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to
The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910,
Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
printed in the netherlands
CONTENTS
Abbreviations ...........................................................................
Introduction to the Treatise ....................................................
I. Trinity and Man ...............................................................
II. Content of the Ad Ablabium ...........................................
III. Dating the Treatise ...........................................................
IV. Linguistic Analysis ............................................................
V. Keys to Reading ................................................................
ix
xi
xi
xiv
xix
xxii
xxviii
Chapter One Nature and Action .........................................

I. Universal Nature ...............................................................
a. The Ad Ablabium ........................................................
b. Universal Nature ..........................................................
c. Nature and Essence .....................................................
d. Nature and Time .........................................................
e. Conclusion ....................................................................
II. The Energies .....................................................................
a. The Ad Ablabium ........................................................
b. The ................................................................
c. Activity ..........................................................................
d. Palamism ......................................................................
III. Unity of Action ...............................................................
a. The Ad Ablabium ........................................................
b. Unity of Action ............................................................
c. Economy and Immanence ...........................................
d. The Unity of Men ......................................................
e. The Apokatastasis ........................................................
1. The Interpretations ..................................................
2. Gregory ....................................................................
3. Evolution ..................................................................
4. Terminology .............................................................
5. The Condemnation .................................................
6. The Misunderstanding ............................................
1
1
1
4
10
17
26
27
27
31
38
45
53
53
56
60
66
76
76
80
83
86
88
91
vi
contents
Chapter Two Apophatism and Person .....................................

I. Introduction ..........................................................................
II. Names ...................................................................................
a. Eunomius .........................................................................
b. The Names and God .......................................................
c. Number ............................................................................
d. Passage to the Person ......................................................
III. The Ad Ablabium .................................................................
IV. Eunomius, Nature and Excess ..............................................
V. The Concept of Person ........................................................
VI. The Theology of Name .......................................................
a. The Name of Christ ..........................................................
b. The Image ........................................................................
c. Connaturality ...................................................................
Conclusion ............................................................................
95
95
99
99
100
103
104
105
111
117
125
125
129
133
138
Chapter Three The Spirit and Unity ......................................

I. Introduction ..........................................................................
a. East and West ..................................................................
b. Gregory ............................................................................
II. The Ad Ablabium .................................................................
III. The Cause ...........................................................................
IV. The Theology of Light ........................................................
a. The Light .........................................................................
b. The Sun ...........................................................................
c. The Flame ........................................................................
V. The Role of the Son ............................................................
a. Per Filium ...........................................................................
b. Ex Filio? ............................................................................
VI. Unity .....................................................................................
a.
........................................................................
b. Glory ................................................................................
Conclusion ............................................................................
149
149
149
151
153
158
163
163
165
170
171
171
174
177
177
180
183
General Conclusions .................................................................... 193
contents
Bibliography .................................................................................
Cited Works and Abbreviations ..............................................
Dictionaries, Concordances and other Sources ......................
Monographs .............................................................................
Articles .....................................................................................
vii
201
201
202
203
205
Index of Persons .......................................................................... 211

Index of Biblical References ....................................................... 215
ABBREVIATIONS
All abbreviations in the present study are from S. Schwertner, Internationales Abkrzungsverzeichnis fr Theologie und Grenzgebiete (IATG), Berlin-New
York 1992. The work is an expanded list of the abbreviations found in
the Theologische Realenzyklopdie (TRE).
The abbreviations of the works of Gregory of Nyssa are included
in the bibliography.
The Abbreviation GNO refers to Brills Gregorii Nysseni Opera, commenced by W. Jaeger.
INTRODUCTION TO THE TREATISE

It is rst necessary that we believe something is, and only then
do we interrogate how that in which we have believed is.
(AdAbl, GNO III/1, 56, 1719)
I. Trinity and Man

Why is it that we say that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are
one God, a unique divine Nature in three Persons, while when we
speak of three concrete human subjects, for example Peter, James and
John, we say that they are three men? Should not one speak in the
case of the Trinity as well of three gods?
The question can seem innocuous, if viewed from the perspective
of contemporary theological comprehension; but it turns out to be of
major historical importance if one remembers that it comes from the
Cappadocian afrmation of ,
, so important
for the doctrinal clarication of Nicea.
The afrmation and discussion of the possibility to apply the concepts of and to either the Trinity or to man cannot
be considered banal from any point of view, and is a necessary point
of passage in the consideration of the Cappadocian theology and the
Nicene dogma. For this reason the treatise of the AdAbl, dedicated by
Gregory to this specic problem, has always been considered a fundamental moment of his thought.
The parallel between the three divine Persons and three men has
assumed a certain renown, and has been taken up also in the sphere
of contemporary theology with the name of social analogy of the
Trinity. Unfortunately it has been at times poorly interpreted, serving
as a foundation for a psychologizing reading of the intra-Trinitarian
relations, as has been recently pointed out by S. Coakley of Harvard
Divinity School, the coordinator of a serious research group on the
interpretation of Gregory.1
1
S. Coakley (Ed.), Re-thinking Gregory of Nyssa, Malden 2003 (re-edition of n. 18 of the
MoTh, Oxford, October 2002): see in particular the introductory article by S. Coakley,
titled Re-thinking Gregory of Nyssa: IntroductionGender, Trinitarian Analogies, and the Pedagogy
xii
introduction to the treatise
According to these scholars it would be necessary to surpass the

common hermeneutic approach to Nyssian thought that maintains
that he starts from the Persons as is typical in the East, instead of
from the essence, as would be more typical of the Western tradition.
The interpretation of the social analogy introduced by De Rgnon2
has contributed largely to this presumed opposition between Eastern
personalism and Western essentialism. The works of De Rgnon inuenced numerous later manuals, above all from the English-speaking
world.3 The leitmotiv explicitated by the research group, composed of
theologians of different confessions, is the desire to contribute to the
ecumenical dialogue through a return to the sources, something that
also permits the harmonious integration of theology, philosophy and
spirituality according to the most pure Cappadocian spirit.4
The understanding of Gregory on the part of S. Coakleys group
is truly profound, above all since it presents the connection between
nature (), power () and activity ( ) as the foundation
of the Nyssian dogmatic construction. The criticism of psychological
reductionism is evidently well founded, in as much as Gregorys interest
is primarily ontological, and not psychological.5 The article of L. Ayres
shows with rigour the danger constituted by the temptation to turn to
the mystery of the Trinity projecting human categories, in this specic
case those of psychology.
of The Song (pp. 113 of the volume, and pp. 431443 of MoTh), and the second article,
by L. Ayres, exclusively dedicated to the AdAbl, with the signicative title of Not Three
People: The Fundamental Themes of Gregory of Nyssas Trinitarian Theology as Seen in To Ablabius:
On Not Three Gods (pp. 1544 of the volume and pp. 445474 of MoTh). This article
constitutes the main body of the chapter (pp. 344363) devoted to the AdAbl in the
essential book: L. Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy: an Approach to Fourth-century Trinitarian Theology, Oxford 2004. The title of the chapter speaks for itself: On Not Three Gods: Gregory
of Nyssas Trinitarian Theology.
2
T. de Rgnon, tudes de thologie positive sur la sainte Trinit, Paris 1892. On the importance and inuence of the interpretation of T. de Rgnon see A. de Halleux, Personnalisme ou essentialisme trinitaire chez les Pres cappadociens, in Idem, Patrologie et oecumnisme: recueil
dtudes, Leuven 1990, pp. 215268 and M.R. Barnes, De Rgnon Reconsidered, AugSt 26
(1995) 5179.
3
S. Coakley cites G.L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought, London 1952; J.N.D. Kelly,
Early Christian Doctrines, London 1958; E.R. HardyC.C. Richardson, Christology of the
Later Fathers, London 1954 and M.F. Wiles, The Making of Christian Doctrine, Cambridge
1974.
4
Cfr. S. Coakley, Re-thinking Gregory of Nyssa . . ., p. 434 and p. 441 (the citations of
the work group of S. Coakley will always follow the pages numbers of the review).
5
Cfr. L. Ayres, Not Three People . . ., p. 447. See also: Idem, Nicaea and its legacy: an
approach to fourth-century Trinitarian theology, Oxford 2004, pp. 344345.
xiii
The interpretive proposal introduced by these authors thus appears

extremely interesting. For the object of this present study the article
of L. Ayres is particularly relevant; he underscores the Nyssian effort
which, in the AdAbl, is used to ontologically and epistemologically found
the capacity of man to know God. The value of this treatise would
thus come from its synthetic character.6
Nevertheless the overall impression that one gathers of the Nyssian
Trinitarian doctrine as presented by the article of L. Ayres does not
seem to do full justice to the greatness and audacity of the thought
of this important Cappadocian author. Perhaps the attention spent on
hermeneutic revision, in direct confrontation with the interpretive deviations, risks leaving in the shadow the amplitude and profundity of the
theological sphere. To reach a balanced synthesis, the meritorious and
difcult pars destruens must always be followed by a pars construens.
The lack of a bibliographical panorama dedicated to the AdAbl is
mentioned by L. Ayres as well.7 To ll this lacuna is the aspiration of
the present book, whose titleTrinity and Manwishes to immediately
highlight the constructive line of interrogation.
One must certainly not exaggerate the importance of the social analogy of the Trinity which should be read in light of the full context of
Nyssian thought, but it does not appear possible to liquidate it as one
of so many analogies used by Gregory. For if it is true that the Nyssian in his exposition has recourse to other images such as arrows or
the juice of grapes, these are not on the same level as men, since man
alone is created at the image of the Trinity. It is not proper to reduce
to a purely rhetorical device an essential theological point.
It is surely true, as L. Ayres writes, that it is the adversaries of the
truth that throw forth the analogy of three men to Gregory. But one
cannot forget that the formulation of this analogy is an inevitable result
of the Cappadocian theology. The interest for the degree of individuation, characteristic of Gregorys adversaries,8 derives from the very
attempt to comprehend how the concepts of and are
applied to God and to man.
The constant attention manifested for soteriology by Gregory obliges
the AdAbl to be read along with the whole of his theology, placing the
6
7
8
Cfr. L. Ayres, Not Three People . . ., p. 446.

Cfr. ibidem, p. 447.
xiv
study of soteriology in proximity to that of eschatology, of the theology of the image and the theology of history.9 It would seem necessary
for this pars construens to confront the results of S. Coakleys group with
the analysis of the concept of the social nature of man presented by
J. Zachhuber,10 since it is essential to grasp the dynamic of the Nyssian
thought which inserts man, with his corporal and historical dimension,
at the interior of the schema of exitus and reditus, where e
coincide in the Trinitarian intimacy.11 These are the intentions of the
present monograph, which seeks to be an extended theological commentary on the AdAbl.
II. Content of the Ad Ablabium
The fundamental question to which the treatise Ad Ablabium: quod non
sint tre dii12 is responding to a certain of the name Ablabius,
to whom one of the letters is also directed.13 The text has been dened
by L. Ayres short but surprisingly complex.14
There is a paternal, or perhaps rhetorical, reprimand to Ablabius
for not having personally striven for a response. Gregory immediately
recognizes the seriousness of the question, and reafrms delity to the
Tradition received from the Fathers, whose value innitely surpasses
any weakness of reasoning or attempt to respond: he thus immediately
claries that he is beginning a theological work, a reasoning in faith.
The rst sketch of a response has more than anything the character of
a literary device or rhetorical expedient, since, with its obvious weakness,
it has the immediate effect of highlighting the true beginning of the
vigorous theological thought: it is the slow ow that precedes the falls.
9
Cfr. G. Maspero, !"#, "$%&"# e "'()"#: La teologia della storia di Gregorio di Nissa, Excerpta e dissertationibus in Sacra Theologia 45 (2003) 383451.
10
J. Zachhuber, Human Nature in Gregory of Nyssa: Philosophical Background and Theological Signicance, Leiden 2000.
11
The question of man is intentionally left aside by L. Ayres, as he explicitly afrms
(cfr. L. Ayres, Not Three People . . ., p. 455). This choice itself implies the renunciation of a
pars construens, limiting oneself to only a pars destruens.
12
This is the title of the Migne edition; in the W. Jaeger edition the title is instead:
*)" (+ &, "'#" !"% ()"' +'. *)' #- #-"%.
13
Reference is to Ep 6, which is addressed to #../ /. Gregory Nazianzen also writes his Epistle 233 to a certain Ablabius, it is not known if this is the same
person (cfr. the note at the title of Ep 6 in GNO VIII/2, p. 34).
14
L. Ayres, Nicaea and its legacy . . ., p. 347.
xv
The proposed solution: one avoids speaking of three gods, in the case of
the Trinity in order not to generate confusion with Hellenic polytheism.
Gregory states explicitly that this is a response that will satisfy only the
most simple, for the rest more serious arguments are necessary.
Already from the beginning the Nyssian shows the profundity of his
thought: the rst argument hits the reader almost with violence, leaving
him confused with the ardent expression, analogically as with what
happens when one listens for the rst time to the lincipit of the Dies
Irae from Mozarts Requiem. Gregory argues that it is improper to speak
of many men, since man is one. Man refers to the nature, and this is one
for all. It is to be noted that this is an ontological unity, not simply a
moral or logical one. If we speak in the plural it is simply for practical
reasons to avoid confusion. This is nevertheless an abuse, which cannot be corrected however, all the more since on the level of human
relations it is an imprecision that one could deem innocuous. But in
the case of the Most Holy Trinity, the improper use of the term God
in the plural would bring forth catastrophic consequences.
The second step is just as ardent: when we say God we are not using a
proper name of the Divinity, since any name of his, be it revealed or
not, is interpretive and cannot express his nature. Each name expresses
a quality, but it cannot express the reality that possesses this quality.
Thus we give names to God starting from the activities known to us,
and this is evident already on the etymological level: we say that the
Divinity (0 1 2) takes its name from vision ( 3 1).
Now, Scripture afrms that the diverse activities of God are not
proper and exclusive of only one of the three divine Persons, but they
extend on the contrary to the whole Trinity.
At this point, not even if one conceded that the name of Divinity
was common to the nature, would the question be resolved. One
could be on the very path of tritheism. For when men share the same
activity we designate them in the plural, such as farmers, shoemakers
and so forth. Thus, since it was afrmed that the name of Divinity
was attributed to activity, the same argument would seem to lead all
the stronger to predicate God in the plural. At the end of this session,
the Nyssian almost asks pardon delicately for the wandering of his
reasoning, explaining that he is seeking to anticipate the objections of
his adversaries.
The third step is the key to the discourse: the difference between
human and divine activity is that men act each for their own account,
xvi
while the activity of the divine Persons is one and unique.15 There are
not three Viviers, nor are three lives communicated, but unique is the
Vivier and unique is the Life in which we participate. The Nyssian
argumentation rests on Scripture itself: unique is the Saviour, unique
is the Judge and unique is the Provident God.
The point is sublime and encloses an enormous theological richness. Gregory does not limit himself to afrm the unity of the actio
ad extra, to use the Latin terminology. In the Trinity all starts from
the Father, passes through the Son and is carried to completion in
the Holy Spirit: it is a unique movement, which is like the breathing
of the Trinity itself, encapsulated in the . The unity of
action is not simply observed as such from outside, from the exterior
of the Trinity, but is afrmed instead by its very interior. Returning to
the Western terminology, the processions and missions are maintained
in the continuity of the same construction of reasoning. Turning to
terminology typical of a more recent theology, this can be translated
into the impossibility to disconnect the immanent Trinity from the
economic one, without necessarily identifying them.
In the unfolding of the argumentation the Nyssian uses Trinitarian formulae and the language itself elevates, the text allows to show
through a profound commotion that the demands of the theological
argumentation cannot stop. Behind the theologian intent on giving a
response to his disciple one sees the mystic, moved as a child inebriated
with joy in the simplicity of the contemplation of his Father.
It is at this point that the apophasis enters into play. In fact, even refusing that the term Divinity indicates the activity of the Trinity would not
change the conclusion of the discourse; the true irresistible strength of
the whole of the Nyssian thought is here manifested: the innity of the
divine Nature.16 One cannot think and delimit the innite. One cannot
name that which is above every name.
One can only count that which can be delimited: the divine essence
cannot, therefore, be multiple due to its unlimitedness. As in nature one
15
The Unicity of the Trinitarian activity is quite different than a simple acting
together, in a parallel sense, as in cooperation, or in a sequential sense, as in an assembly
line or in a relay. For this reason it was considered better to not speak of a coordination,
which could lead to think of a successive intervention of each of the divine Persons. It
is rather one activity alone, a unique movement, in which each person is always active,
intervening according to his proper personal characteristic.
16
Cfr. M. Canvet, Grgoire de Nysse, in DSp 6 (1967) cols. 984985.
xvii
counts money and not gold, which is one by itself, while the pieces of
money are of gold and not a multiplicity of golds.
Nor can one cite against this the expressions of Scripture that seem
to refer to a multiplicity of men, since it, when there is possibility of
confusion, uses the common language of men rather than a technical
one. Thus it speaks of men in the plural, so that none might fall into
the equivocation of thinking of a multiplicity of human natures, but
it speaks of the one and unique God, so that one be not led to think
of a multiplicity of divine natures.
Thus in God there is no distinction according to essence, which
is one and simple: one must attribute to the Father, the Son and the
Holy Spirit to be God and every attribute that belongs to the Divinity,
considered either from the perspective of nature or of activity.
The nale of the work is an imperiously growing crescendo, since
Gregory must clarify at this point that that which was said does not
lead to a confusion of the Persons. The immutability of nature does
not exclude that which is cause and that which is caused. Further, that
which is caused immediately and that which is caused through that
which is caused immediately is not the same. Returning to the schema
of , Gregory distinguishes the Persons according to relation (), and starting from the monarchy of the Father, places in
the center the mediation17 of the Son, a mediation that guarantees that
the Son remains the Only-Begotten without excluding the Spirit from
a relation to the Father.
This is a theological summit, since Gregory distinguishes here two
levels: what is ( ), to which corresponds the nature, and how it
is ( 4 ), to which the argument of cause is referred. Not even
in nature can one know what a reality truly is, nor can one reach its
essence. Instead one can only know how things are, and follow the
reasoning of causes.18
The Nyssian once again unites without confusing the intra and the
extra of the Trinity. The whole treatise is nothing other, in the end,
than a theology of the relationship between the Trinity and the world,
17
J. Ratzinger expresses this mediation with power, saying that the Son is pure Sein von
and Sein frbeing from and being for, that is relation of total dependence on the Father,
from whom he receives all, and total self-gift. Thus he can afrm that in Christ Das
Ich ist das Werk, und das Werk ist das Ich ( J. Ratzinger, Einfhrung in das Christentum,
Ksel 1968, p. 162).
18
This is a key distinction for science, whose value is founded here.
xviii
while at the same time being a critical analysis of ultimate theological

foundation for the value and limits of the analogy between God and
man, who is created in his image.
The schema of the work is thus:
The Question
First Element of Response: Avoid confusion
with Hellenic polytheism.
i. First step: Human nature is one, it is improper
to speak of many men.
ii. Second step: God is a name of the activity.
iii. Third step: The difference between God and
men is that the divine Persons have a unique
activity.
iv. Apophatism: The essence is ineffable.
v. Finale: The distinction of Persons.
The structure of the work thus suggests the following schema for the
theological commentary:
i. A rst chapter will be dedicated to the three steps that constitute
the backbone of the logical structure of the treatise itself:
a) A rst part will be dedicated to the universal human nature, that is
to the question of the sense of the afrmation that it is improper
to speak of many men. In this context the relationship between
human nature and time will also be developed.
b) A second part will treat the delicate theme of the and the
divine activity. Reference to the Palamite question will be necessary,
along with Nyssian value for the history of Orthodox dogmatics.
c) Finally, a third part will enter with more detail into the central
argument of the work: the difference between human action and
Trinitarian action. A special focus will be placed here on the different Trinitarian formulae and the relationship between economy
and immanence. Inevitably there will be reference to the Nyssian
eschatological vision and his doctrine of the .
ii. In a second chapter apophatism will be treated in the form that it
appears in the work. Analysis of the Nyssian linguistic theory will
develop into the deepening of the concept of person in Gregorys
thought, with reference to the terminology of 5 - ,
and a culmination in the theology of the name of Christ.
xix
iii. In the light of the afrmations on apophatism, the last chapter will
be dedicated, according to a Trinitarian schema, to the distinction of
the Trinitarian Persons and the question of the Filioque.
As can be seen from the proposed schema, the treatise and commentary are divided into two phases: one more constructive, analyzed in
the rst chapter, and one more defensive or apologetic, studied in the
last two.
So the path traveled starts from the consideration of man and of
human nature (I. a) to pass to the divine nature (I. b). One will be in
a position then (I. c) to show the differences between the divine and
human actions.
Once the more constructive phase is nished, one passes to the level
of the theory of knowledge, a theme that is basically one of fundamental
theology (II), and concludes with the defense against the accusation of
tritheism and the distinction of Persons (III).
III. Dating the Treatise
The dating of the AdAbl is still an unresolved problem. E. Moutsoulas
writes: The exact dating of the period in which the work was written
is difcult, for which there is disagreement between scholars, a disagreement that extends from 375 to 390 AD.19
J. Danilou 20 distinguishes three principle periods of Nyssian
production:
a) Before the death of Basil at the end of 378, which signals a great
change in Gregorys life,21 who gathers the theological inheritance
of his brother and becomes, thanks precisely to his originality and
19
E.D. Moutsoulas, !2 %2, Athens 1997, p. 186. For a recent and
complete overview of the different proposals for the dating of Gregorys works, see
P. Maraval, article Cronologa de las obras, in L.F. Mateo-SecoG. Maspero, Diccionario
de San Gregorio de Nisa, Burgos 2006, pp. 265284.
20
Cfr. J. Danilou, La chronologie des oeuvres de Grgoire de Nysse, StPatr 7 (1966) 159169.
For the Nyssian sermons, see the preceding work: Idem, La chronologie des sermons de Grgoire de Nysse, RevSR 29 (1955) 346372.
21
J. Danilou maintained that the date of Basils death was January 1st 379, but
more recently J.R. Pouchet has shown that the most probable date should be situated
instead towards the end of September 378: cfr. J.R. Pouchet, La date de llection piscopale
de saint Basile et celle de sa mort, RHE 87 (1992) 533 and P. Maraval, La date de la mort de
Basile de Csare, REAug 34 (1988) 2538; Idem, Retour sur quelques dates concernant Basile
de Csare et Grgoire de Nysse, RHE 99 (2004) 153157.
xx
autonomy, its principle defender. To this period would belong for

example, DeBeat, InInsPs and DeVirg.
b) The second period extends from the death of Basil until 385, and
is characterized by production of great doctrinal works, such as
DeHom, Antir, the three books of the CE and the RCE, together
with a series of small treatises such as Ep 38, AdGraec,22 AdSimp, and
AdMac.23 There is a turning point in this period after Gregory visited
Jerusalem in 382, the year after the Council of Constantinople, as
will be seen later (see p. 85).
c) The last period, which includes the works after 385, is characterized by the allusions of the Nyssian to his old age, and by the fact
that his writings are often dedicated to monks. A series of dogmatic
tractates belongs to this period, such as InIllud, DePerf, DeProf and
AdTheo. There are also great exegetical works of maturity, such as
DeVitaMo and InCant.
So in the second and third periods Gregory wrote small dogmatic
treatises. Thus the most probable hypothesis of dating the AdAbl would
place it in one of these two possibilities.
G. May assigns the work to the second period.24 R.P.C. Hanson,25
G.C. Stead26 and R.M. Hbner27 are of the same opinion, in as much
22
R. Hbner reinstates Ep 38 to the work of Gregory of Nyssa, although previously
it was considered part of Basils letters: R. Hbner, Gregor von Nyssa als Verfasser der sog.
ep. 38 des Basilius. Zum unterschiedlichen Verstndnis der Ousia bei den Kappadoziern Brdern, in
Epektasis: Mlanges patristiques offerts au Card. J. Danilou, Beauchesne 1972, pp. 463490.
This has been studied by P. Fedwick, A Commentary of Gregory of Nyssa or the 38th Letter
of Basil of Caesarea. OrChrP 44 (1978) 3151. For the AdGraec: H.J. von Vogt, Die Schrift
Ex communibus notionibus des Gregor von Nyssa: bersetzung des kritischen Textes mit Kommentar,
ThQ 171 (1991) 204218 and D.F. Stramara, Gregory of Nyssa, Ad Graecos How It Is That
We Say There Are Three Persons In The Divinity But Do Not Say There Are Three Gods (To The
Greeks: Concerning the Commonality of Concepts), GOTR 41 (1996) 375391.
23
The minor tractates have been studied by T. Ziegler. See T. Ziegler, Les petits traits
de Grgoire de Nysse, Doctoral thesis, Strasbourg 1987. See also B. Duvick, The Trinitarian
Tracts of Gregory of Nyssa, in H.R. DrobnerA. Vinciano (Ed.), Gregory of Nyssa: Homilies
on the Beatitudes, Leiden 2000, pp. 581592.
24
Cfr. G. May, Die Chronologie des Lebens und der Werke des Gregor von Nyssa, in M.
Canvet, Exegse et thologie dans les traits spirituels de Grgoire de Nysse, en M. Harl (ed),
criture et culture philosophique dans la pense de Grgoire de Nysse, Leiden 1971, pp. 5859.
25
Cfr. R.P.C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, Edinburgh 1988, p. 717.
26
Cfr. G.C. Stead, Why Not Three Gods?: The Logic of Gregory of Nyssas Trinitarian Doctrine, in H. DrobnerCh. Klock (dir), Studien zu Gregor von Nyssa und der Christlichen
Sptantike, Leiden 1990, p. 150.
27
Cfr. R. Hbner, Gregor von Nyssa als Verfasser der sog. ep. 38 des Basilius. Zum unterschiedlichen Verstndnis der Ousia bei den Kappadoziern Brdern, in Epektasis: Mlanges patristiques
offerts au Card. J. Danilou, Beauchesne 1972, pp. 463490.
xxi
as they tie the AdAbl to the theological discussions in reference to the

Council of Constantinople, around 380.
Nevertheless many other scholars assign the work to the last period of
Gregorys life.28 The tone of the writing appears foreign to the polemical
tones that characterize the years around 381, suggesting a collocation
some time after the edict of Theodosius. Even a rapid reading of the
AdEust is enough to see the extremely polemical and tense situation,
despite the fact that the theme of the treatise is the unity of action, as
with the AdAbl. In the AdAbl Gregorys discourse is serene. One sees that
there is no direct accusation of heresy: he defends himself from tritheism without attachment. One sees that Ablabius himself would have the
tools to respond to the question. It appears that Gregory is treating an
objection in a situation that is henceforth dogmatically clear.
Further, Gregory writes with authority in the AdAbl, as a recognized
doctor who does not make any reference to Basil. The author himself
mentions his advanced age,29 using the expression 7 84 4
5 (37, 5). The most probable dating thus appears to be at the
end of the 380s. It is surely a work that comes some years after the
AdGraec.
One difference between this treatise and Epistle 38, is that the language is not strictly and exclusively technical. This could seem a limit
to the work,30 but instead the tone is less preoccupied for philosophical
rigourism and this renders the writing more incisive theologically, more
attentive to the pastoral and existential dimensions.
The AdAbl can be dened as a synthetic work, since it recapitulates all
the particular themes of the small Trinitarian tractates31 of the second
period. Obviously the themes of the unity of human nature, of the
divine , of the unity of action and also of the determination
of the personal characteristics of each person work together to form a
marvellous picture. It is precisely this last theme that pushes T. Ziegler
28
Cfr. J. Zachhuber, Human Nature in Gregory of Nyssa: Philosophical Background and
Theological Signicance, Leiden 2000, p. 113.
29
But this argument alone is insufcient, as in the writings preceding 381 Gregory
has recourse to the image of white hairs as a rhetorical device, and already in 383 refers
to his advanced age (cfr. J. Danilou, La chronologie . . ., p. 166).
30
Cfr. J. Zachhuber, Human Nature . . ., p. 118.
31
T. Ziegler, who situates the work at the end of the minor dogmatic treatises of the
second period, writes: Or, de par son contenu lAd Ablabium sinscrit parfaitement
dans la continuit des traits analyss prcdemment et peut en tre regard comme la
synthse (T. Ziegler, Les petits traits . . ., p. 188).
xxii
to say that: and it is in this that the Ad Ablabium merits to be seen as

an achievement: different from the Ex communibus notionibus and the Ad
Eustathium, it offers not a partial, fragmentary approach to the problem
of the divine tri-unity, but a global approach, one that is dialectic and
balanced and that corresponds to the very dialectical and paradoxical
nature of the Cappadocian Trinitarian theology.32
One could perhaps attempt here to reconstruct the chronology of the
smaller Trinitarian works, giving chronological priority to the AdEust,
for the violence of the heresies that are sketched out there, which along
with Ep 5 could be anterior to 379. Ep 38 would immediately follow,
which treats the distinction of and , and is thus situated
in a rst phase of the doctrinal clarications that will lead up to the
Council of Constantinople. The AdGraec is logically successive, since it is
principally preoccupied in afrming the equivalence between
and 5 , still in the technical discussions preceding 381. Ep 24
due to its synthetic character, should be placed after the Council of
Constantinople, as with Ep 3, which is surely posterior to Gregorys
voyage to Jerusalem. The DeDeit is unanimously assigned33 to 383.
IV. Linguistic Analysis
The end of the DeDeit immediately recalls the AdAbl. After having reafrmed the ineffability of the divine nature and the fact that the term
Divinity refers to activity and not nature, Gregory comments the episode
of Ananias34 of Acts 5.3, referring to him with the expression: 9
:;< 9 = 2 . This must be confronted with
the almost identical expression of: > ? @ 2 9
:;<, in AdAbl, 45, 1516.
This observation could be an indicator of a certain proximity of
the two works, supporting a hypothesis of the dating of the AdAbl in
32
Et cest en ceci aussi que lAd Ablabium mrite dtre regard comme un achvement: la difference de lEx communibus notionibus et de lAd Eustathium, il offre
non une approche partielle, fragmentaire, du problme de la tri-unit divine, mais une
approche globale, dialectique et quilibre, qui correspond la nature mme, dialectique et paradoxale, de la doctrine trinitaire cappadocienne (Ibidem, p. 215).
33
Cfr. E.D. Moutsoulas, !2 %2, Athens 1997, p. 262; J. Danilou, La
chronologie des sermons . . ., p. 363 and J. Bernardi, La prdication des Pres Cappadociens. Le
prdicateur et son auditoire, Paris 1968, p. 327.
34
DeDeit, GNO X/2, 142144.
xxiii
the second period. But a rapid analysis shows that the same expression
can be found in reference to Judas, in InCant, GNO VI, 409, 3: 9
:;< 2 . One can virtually superimpose this with the
expression of the AdAbl.
This observation suggests an opportunity to analyze the Biblical
citations35 and the terminology of this last treatise to compare it with
other Nyssian works.
If one follows the chronology proposed by J. Danilou as seen in the
previously mentioned works, the Biblical citations of the AdAbl can be
divided into ve groups:
i) Citations that are found in almost all the moments of the Nyssian
work, such as for example:36 Phil 2.9 (52, 22), 1 Cor 1.24 (50, 1)
and Jn 5.22 (49, 11)
ii) Citations that are only found in the AdAbl, such as: Jn 18.25 (49,8)
iii) Citations that are also found in works of the rst two periods:
Rm 1.23 (43, 16), that is found twice in DeVirg (GNO VIII/1,
252, 6 and 299, 29), belonging to period I.
Mt 12.28 (50, 8), that is found in RCE (GNO II, 406), from period II.
iv) Citations that are found principally in works of the third period,
with appearances in a few works of earlier periods:
Eph 6.16 (37,8), which is found also in DeInst (GNO VIII/1, 62)
and in the InCant (GNO VI, 298), of period III, as well as in InEccl
(GNO V, 434), of period I, and in CE (GNO I, 229), of period II.
Ps 103.24 (50, 34), which appears twice in both DeInfant (GNO
III/2, 97 and 72) and in InCant (GNO VI, 55 and 203), of period III,
as well as in InDiemLu (GNO IX, 228) and in ApHex (PG 44, 73B).
v) Citations that only appear in works of Period III.
Ps 119.4 (37, 9), found twice in InCant (GNO VI, 128, 19s and 165, 9)
Heb 6.16 (54, 6), also found twice in InCant (GNO VI, 375, 36
and 375, 8)
Ps 23.8 (43, 16), found twice in InAscen (GNO IX, 326, 7 and
27), once in InCant (GNO VI, 166, 13) and once in InIllud (GNO
III/2, 27, 22)
35
For the analysis of the Biblical citations, the precious work: H. Drobner, Bibelindex
zu den Werken Gregors von Nyssa, Paderborn 1988 was used.
36
The citation of the AdAbl in GNO III/1 is indicated in parentheses.
xxiv
To these last Biblical references one can add many more that are found
only in the AdAbl, but whose immediate context is common to works
of period III. For example:
Dt 6.4 (42, 5 e 55, 3), where the immediately successive verse appears
six times in the InCant and twice in DeInst.
1 Tm 4.10 (52, 3) found only in the AdAbl, while 1 Tm 4.1215 is
found in the InCant.
Is 4.4 (50, 6), whose immediately successive verse is found in the
InCant.
Ps 83.10 (45, 4s), which besides obviously appearing in InInsPs, is cited
ve times in the InCant and once in the DeInst (verses 6 and 8).
Obviously no certain conclusions can be drawn, nevertheless there
appears to be an afnity between the citations of period III and those
of the AdAbl. For example, considering only the four psalms cited in
the treatise, one sees that they belong to the group of psalms loved by
Gregory towards the end of his life. If one considers the frequency
of use of verses from these psalms throughout the works of the three
periods (leaving aside the InInsPs for obvious reasons) one obtains the
following results:
Period:
II
III
Ps
Ps
Ps
Ps
3
4
5
2
0
1
4
0
18
8
21
8
23
83
103
119
Psalms 23, 83 and 103 belong to the group of eight psalms cited
ve or more times in the InCant. Psalm 103 is the preferred psalm
of this work of maturity, cited some 11 times.
Thus one can hypothesize a certain afnity of the AdAbl in general
with the writings of period III, and in particular with the InCant.
A conrmation comes from terminological analysis: if one studies the less frequent terms and expressions of the treatise, and that
appear in only a few works, the parallelism with the InCant is reinforced. One can propose the following classication:
i) Expressions that appear only in the AdAbl and in works of period
I, like the verb (37, 12), found also in InInsPs (GNO
V, 121, 9).
xxv
ii) Expressions that appear only in the AdAbl and in works of period
II, such as:
A 5 0 (39, 6) parallel to

A 5 0 ; in DeDeitEv (GNO IX, 340,
1819) (381 AD).
B < 9 (44, 18) found also in DeVita, (GNO X/1, 12, 34).
@ 9 . (41, 10), in DeHom (PG 44, 225C).
5 (47, 12) in Ep 24 (4, 10; GNO VIII/2, 76, 5),
(circa 381382).
9 0 < 9 C (48, 78) in DeHom (PG 44,
248C).
4 (56, 5 e 56, 6) found twice in CE II (GNO I, 323,
2223 e 342, 23) and once in CEIII (GNO II, 15, 4), but not in
the Trinitarian sense as in the AdAbl.
E F, G @ 3 15 2 ;21 H22 G
@ 4 4 , (42, 2122) parallel to G
I G @ 3 15 2 ;21 , G @
3 J !3 (DeDeit, GNO X/2, 142, 1214).
iii) Expressions that appear only in the AdAbl and in works of period
III, such as:
A 1; A 3 5 (37, 8) which appears in its pure form37
only in DeInst (GNO VIII/1, 62, 11) and in InCant (GNO VI,
298, 14).
3 1 (37, 11) which recalls 3 1 in DeVitaMo (I, 2, 56) and 9 3 1 15
(I, 2, 9).
3 L I , (38,
22) parallel in a verbal copy in E L; I
2 , (InCant, GNO VI, 372, 12).
9 21 (40, 13) which only appears in DeVitaMo (II,
220, 10).
9 9 (41, 1) only found in OrCat (GNO III/4, 13, 24)
always referred to nature.
; (43, 6) found only in InIllud (GNO III/2 26, 4).38
37
Two other times it appears in composition with other expressions in CE II, GNO
I, 229, 2021 and 2526.
38
J. Danilou attributes this work to the third period (cfr. J. Danilou, La chronologie . . .,
p. 167). J.K. Downing, who dedicated his doctoral thesis to the InIllud (cfr. J.K. Downing,
xxvi
C (47, 20) only in InIllud (GNO III/2 26, 8).

;220 4 F5 (51, 2) only in OrCat (GNO III/4,
40, 14).
I 2 0 1 M (52,
16) parallel to @ 5
8 15 2 0
I 2 :;N H1 of InCant VI, 337, 12.
F/ (53, 20) only appearing in InCant VI, 173, 13, in the
expression parallel to 53, 2022: 2 @ O2 A A
I A A 22 F/ I G I P
I , 3 I 0 5 @
I 0 1 5 , Q 2? B 9 0 O2 ;R BH5 5 P .
of InCant VI, 173,
1317.
S; (54, 6): the verb is found only in DeInst (GNO VIII/1,
88, 17) and three times in the InCant (GNO VI, 374, 4 e 377, 4
e 377, 9).
< . ; , T 5 U 5 0

> , ? .;2 @ 0 H, (54, 1213)
expression parallel to ' W X2 8
I 5 0
8 , of InCant (GNO VI, 224, 910) which, together
with GNO VI, 5, 9 are the only three cases of a noetic 5
that is, referred to words or concepts.
The Treatise of Gregory of Nyssa: In illud: Tunc et ipse Filius. A Critical text with Prolegomena.
Diss. Harvard Univ., Cambridge (Ma.) 1947), and later realized the critical edition in
GNO III/2, 328, maintains that the theme of of 1 Cor 15.28, present in
both the CE and the RCE, demonstrates at once the Nyssian authenticity of the work
and its date of composition, that is the year 383 (cfr. Idem, The Treatise of Gregory of
Nyssa In Illud: tunc et Ipse Filius, A Critical Text with Prolegomena, HSCP, 5859 (1948) 223).
Nevertheless the argument does not appear sufcient to discern such a limited period
of time, such as the one from 383 to 385. The hypothesis of J. Danilou seems more
probable, who considers the InIllud to be composed between 385 and 390. It would then
be contemporary to the Oratio 30 of Gregory Nazianzen, dedicated to the exegetical
discussion of certain Biblical passages used by the Eunomians, among which is found 1
Cor 15.28, which presents some points of contact with the InIllud, including the theme
of (cfr. J.T. Lienhard, The exegesis of 1 Co 15, 2428 from Marcellus of
Ancyra to Theodoret of Cyrus, VigChr 37 (1983) 347). Further, in the Nyssian treatise the
theme of 2 is present, a theme that becomes more frequent in the writings of
Gregorys last period (cfr. p. 139). On the InIllud, in general, see C. McCambley, When
(the Father) Will Subject All Things to (the Son), Then (the Son) Himself Will Be subjected to him
(the Father) Who Subjects All Things to him (The Son).A Treatise on First Corinthians, 15, 28
by Saint Gregory of Nyssa, GOTR 28 (1983) 115. For the relationship with Marcellus of
Ancyra, see R. Hbner, Gregor von Nyssa und Markell von Ankyra, in M. Harl (ed.), criture
et culture philosophique dans la pense de Grgoire de Nysse, Leiden 1971, 199299.
xxvii
? .;2 @ 0 H, (54, 13) parallel to 8

, 0 .
1 9 0 3 H 5 H
@ 9 9 Y9 < . of the InCant (GNO
VI, 53, 1415).
The terminological afnities are surely present,39 particularly if one
considers that the AdAbl is a tractate of Trinitarian dogmatics, while
the InCant is an exegetical-spiritual one. The coincidences are not thus
found due to terminological specicity, but due to literary expression, as
is clear in the case of 2 9 :;< of AdAbl, 45, 1516,
which has been seen already. This is in exact parallel to InCant, GNO
VI, 409, 3, even if outside the context of reference to Acts 5.3.
Thus it is reasonable to suppose that Gregory re-read at least some of
his own Trinitarian writings, above all the small treatises, of which the
AdAbl appears to be a conclusive synthesis, as has already been observed.
Nevertheless the language is not highly technical and shows more afnities to the writings close to 390. Therefore one can hypothesize that,
in the context of the last period of Nyssian production that goes from
386 until his death, the AdAbl should be situated around 390, perhaps
in the years immediately preceding the InCant .40 In fact, the sermons
InAscen and DeSpir of 388 are witness to the renewed interest of Gregory
for the third Person of the Trinity in precisely this period.41
Another point in favour of the later dating near the last phase of
Nyssian production is the already mentioned parallel between
3 1 of the AdAbl (37, 11) and the 3 1
39
For brevitys sake the cases of only partial accord are left out, such as @ 9
B5 Z15 (37, 2) which appears only in DeHom, and twice in the InCant, or @
12 (41, 4) found in DeMort IX, 53, 2 (dated around 380, cfr. G. Lozza, Gregorio
di Nissa: Discorso sui defunti, Torino 1991, p. 7) and in the InCant (GNO VI, 135, 4) and
DeVitaMo (I, 44, 9).
40
J.B. Cahill places the date of composition around 391: cfr. J.B. Cahill, The Date and
Setting of Gregory of Nyssas Commentary on the Song of Songs, JThS 32 (1981) 447460. See
also F. Dnzl, Gregor von Nyssas Homilien zum Canticum auf dem Hintergrund seiner Vita
Moysis, VigChr 44 (1990) 371381.
41
In this sense the dating proposed here based upon direct textual analysis is in close
agreement with the proposition of S. Coakley, who afrms for theological reasons the
necessity to read the AdAbl in light of the InCant (cfr. S. Coakley, Re-thinking Gregory of
Nyssa . . ., p. 437). The same can be said of the text of L. Ayres, who afrms that the social
analogy of the Trinity was an important argument in the discussion with those who
negated the divinity of the Holy Spirit ( cfr. L. Ayres, Not Three People . . ., pp. 448449),
something at the centre of Gregorys interest during the third period.
xxviii
of DeVitaMo (I, 2, 56): Danilou deduces that this last expression of

the DeVitaMo is directed to a monk.42 These monastic recipients characterize the last period.
In this manner T. Ziegler would be correct when afrming that this
treatise is in a certain way the last word of Gregory on the Trinitarian
problem in the proper sense.43
V. Keys to Reading
In the light of this dating, it seems even more important to consider
the AdAbl in the whole of Gregorys thought, to avoid reducing its
signicance improperly. For this reason we will seek to cite many of
Gregorys texts, even in extended format to keep them in their original
context as much as possible. This is an attempt to avoid projecting the
categories of the contemporary reader onto Nyssian thought.
The commentary will be essentially theological: instead of entering
into a discussion of the schools, the effort will be to situate the treatise
at the interior of Nyssian theology, studying its central nodes in a largely
synthetic prospective. Philological and historical analysis will thus be at
the service of the theological one.
The commentary will thus follow the structure of the AdAbl itself,
seeking to situate each of the principle themes of the treatise in the
whole of Gregorys thought.
The natural key to reading is the connection between immanence
and the Trinitarian economy: this distinction appears clear at rst, but
is extremely delicate to handle and rich to meditate, since it is nothing
other that the expression of the relationship of God to man and man to
God, of eternity to time and of time to eternity, this complex relationship coming together suddenly in the Person of the unique Christ.44
One might be tempted to see in these expressions one of the projections that J. Danilou lamented so much.45 But the history of dogma
42
Cfr. J. Danilou, Grgoire de Nysse. La vie de Mose, SC 1, Paris 1968, p. 47, n. 1.

Ce trait est dune certaine faon le dernier mot de Grgoire sur le problme
trinitaire proprement dit (T. Ziegler, Les petits traits . . ., p. 291).
44
Distinction claire premire vue, mais extrmement dlicate manier et riche
mditer, car elle nest rien dautre que lexpression du rapport de Dieu lhomme e de
lhomme Dieu, de lternit au temps et du temps lternit, ce rapport complexe se
nouant soudain dans la seule personne du Christ unique (B. Pottier, Dieu et le Christ selon
Grgoire de Nysse, Turnhout 1994, p. 359).
45
Le grand danger est de considrer la pense des Pres en fonction de ltat prsent
43
xxix
shows that the problematic of the relationship between the being and
action of the Trinity was at the roots of both the problem with Eunomius and that with Apollinarius.
Only a few years after Gregorys death it was to be the Patriarch
Proclus of Constantinople who afrmed explicitly that he who suffered
in the esh is one of the Persons of the Trinity.46 The afrmation would
become the object of discussion in the theopaschite polemic, and will
become dogma in 553 with the Council of Constantinople II.47 As we
shall see, these ancient discussions on the relationship between economy
and immanence still echo today at the level of ecumenical theology.
Further it is worth recalling that the Cappadocians were accused at
various moments of having been inclined in an unbalanced measure
to the immanent aspect of the Trinitarian mystery, so as to separate it
from the economic aspect.
L. Scheffczyk in particular was much perplexed in his work included
in Mysterium Salutis. He afrms there that the personal distinction in
the Cappadocian theology is only formal in such a manner that the
concrete ad extra activity of the three Persons cannot lead back to the
hypostatic properties.48 The same afrmations are repeated in the part
written by L. Scheffczyk in the recent dogmatic of which the eminent
theologian is co-author with A. Ziegenaus.49 The separation between
economy and immanence would lead inevitably to apophatism.
The theme is taken up by J.-Ph. Houdret, J.-M. Garrigues, J.S.
Nadal and M.J. Le Guillou, authors of a special issue of Istina in 1974,
de la thologie et des problmes quelle pose, au lieu de la situer dans les problmes qui
se posaient de leur temps et des perspectives dans lesquelles se situait leur thologie.
( J. Danilou, Lapocatastase chez Saint Grgoire de Nysse, RSR 30 (1940) 337).
46
In the Tomus ad Armenios of 437, at n. 10, Proclus afrms that one of the Trinity
bacame incarnate and thus had suffered (cfr. Proclus of Constantinople, Tomus ad
Armenios 10, PG 65, 865BD). The formula appears clearly in an explanatory letter of
Proclus to John of Antioch, of which Liberatus has transmitted a passage: Et unum ex
Trinitate secundum carnem crucixum fatemur, et Divinitatem passibilem minime blasphemamus (in Liberatus, Breviarium causae Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum, PL 68, 990D).
47
Cfr. J. Chn, Unus de Trinitate passus est, RSR 53 (1965) 567575.
48
Cfr. L. Scheffczyk, Lehramtliche Formulierungen und Dogmengeschichte der Trinitt, in
Mysterium Salutis II, Einsiedeln 1966, pp. 178180.
49
Freilich muss zugegeben werden, dass die Umschreibungen der Hypostasen recht
formal gehalten sind und der konkreten Inhaltlichkeit entbehren, was sich danach auch
in der Darstellung der Wirkungen der gttlichen Personen nach aussen bemerkbar
macht, die eigentlich nicht auf die Personunterschiede zurckgefhrt werden. berhaupt tritt im Zuge der Klrung der immanenten Trinitt deren heilkonomische
Betrachtung zurck, obgleich sie zum Ausgangspunkt der Lehre genommen ist und
anerkannt bleibt. (L. ScheffczykA. Ziegenaus, Katholische Dogmatik II, Aachen 1996,
pp. 242243).
xxx
dedicated to Palamite theology and its relationship to patristic thought.

The rst level of accusation against Palamas was to have inherited
from the polemics of the Cappadocians with Eunomius a false notion
of divine transcendence and unknowability. He would have let himself
be swept up with the force of the polemic and have accepted to ght
on the same terrain of the notion of transcendence as that proposed
by the neo-Arians. From this he would have developed a false apophatism. Even if it is clearly afrmed that the Cappadocians did not in any
way intend to introduce further distinctions in God himself, between
the essence and his attributes, it is nevertheless explicitly said that:
Eunomiuss refuters would have cut the order of ad extra activities from
its personal source, in this way menacing the liberty and gratuity of
the economy.50 Their Palamite successors would not thus have been
able to escape an eternal and necessary emanation.
In this case it would seem audacious at best to choose the relationship between immanent and economic Trinity as a key to reading of
the AdAbl.
However other authors who have studied in detail Gregorys thought
nd in Nyssian theology the foundations of the distinction, that is the
union without confusion, of Trinitarian intimacy and the manifestation
of the three divine Persons in time.
Thus for example, the analysis of R.J. Kees51 of the OrCat, a work
which like the AdAbl belongs to the Gregorian maturity, is in strident
contradiction with the above afrmations. He instead nds in the concepts of immanence and economy the structural bases themselves of the
Nyssian work. This scholar says of Gregory that he, presenting the Logos
and in a corresponding manner, according to a parallel argument, also
the Pneuma as living and powerful Hypostases of the unique Divinity,
establishes the theological foundation of the Oikonomia.52
He who approaches the study of the great Cappadocian must realize
that, as W. Jaeger has written, although Gregory has no closed system,
50
Les rfutateurs dEunome auraient coup lordre des activits ad extra de sa
source personnelle, menaant ainsi la libert et la gratuit de lconomie. (A. de Halleux, Palamisme et Tradition, Irn. 48 (1975) 482).
51
R.J. Kees, Die Lehre von der Oikonomia Gottes in der Oratio Catechetica Gregors von Nyssa,
Leiden 1995.
52
Indem er aber den Logos und in paralleler Argumentation entsprechend auch das
Pneuma Gottes als lebendige, mchtige Hypostasen der einen Gottheit erweist, legt er das
theologische Fundament fr die Oikonomia (Ibidem, p. 318).
xxxi
there is a systematic coherence in his thought.53 For this reason it is

insufcient to limit oneself to the study of Cappadocian thought in
general to understand the specic addition of Nyssian thought, above
all if the preoccupation in actual theological problematics depends for
a certain efcacy on historical analysis.
Gregorys economic conceptualization is both serious and ample.
Thus B. Pottier says that For Gregory, the economy does not start only
with the Incarnation of the Son, but embraces all that is not theology,
that is to say all that is not eternal. Economy designates all of Gods
activity in relationship to time, including creation. Thus it cannot be
reduced to the presence of the Incarnate Son on earth, nor even to
the whole of the Salvation history as found in the Bible, it must also
include the whole history of men and the special providence of God
for each one of them, before and beyond any historical revelation.54
All Nyssian thought is therefore descending: it moves from God
towards man, from theology to economy, aspects which Gregory
ties closely one to the other, identifying the classic divine property of
Goodness to the love of men.55 In this way the reason for our salvation is in the Trinity, in the love that unites the Father to the Son. We
are saved by becoming the Body of Christ, and thus image of the Image
(3 C C: DePerf, GNO VIII/1, 196, 12). Economy and
immanence cannot be separated.
As will be seen in greater detail, Gregory has the fortune of being
the youngest and most perspicacious of the three Cappadocians. He
will need to confront and profoundly penetrate not only the thought
of Eunomius, but also that of Apollinarius. The rst broke the intraTrinitarian immanence, reducing it to the Father who was identied
with the divine essence. He lowered in this manner the hypostases of
the Son and the Holy Spirit to the energetic level, thus to the economic
level. Apollinarius on the other hand made of the humanity of Christ
53
W. Jaeger, Two Rediscovered Works of Ancient Christian Literature: Gregory of Nyssa and
Macarius, Leiden 1965, p. 31
54
Pour Grgoire, lconomie ne commence pas seulement avec lincarnation du
Fils, mais elle embrasse tout ce qui nest pas la thologie, cest--dire tout ce qui nest pas
ternel. Lconomie dsigne toute lactivit de Dieu en rapport avec le temps, cration
y compris. Elle ne peut donc se rduire la prsence du Fils incarn sur terre, ni mme
lhistoire sainte tout entire telle qucrite en la Bible, car elle doit comprendre aussi
lhistoire de tous les hommes et la providence spciale de Dieu pour chacun, avant mme
ou en dehors de toute rvlation historique (B. Pottier, Dieu et le Christ . . ., p. 359).
55
Gregor bindet beide eng aneinander, indem er die klassische Gotteseigenschaft
der Gte mit der Menschenliebe identiziert (R.J. Kees, Die Lehre . . ., p. 319).
xxxii
a pre-existing being in the intra-Trinitarian immanence. In both cases,

economy and immanence are separated or radically confused.
The commentary of the AdAbl is thus aiming to show, in the structure
of the treatise itself, the connection and distinction between Trinitarian immanence and economy, which is articulated in the relationship
between essence, nature, hypostases and their activity. The central point
is thus the inseparability of Christology and doctrine of the Trinity. This
naturally leads to the discussion of apophatism, in its relationship to the
essence and the Hypostases according to the Nyssian conception.
Thus in its articulation the AdAbl shows the impossibility of separating
questions of fundamental theology from dogmatics properly speaking.
One does not reduce all of theology to fundamental theology, as seems
to have happened with the inuence of K. Rahners work,56 but to place
Christology and Trinitarian theology in the centre, and to study the
hierarchy of truth, descending even to history, the world and questions
of fundamental theology to learn from God who man is.
56
Cfr. G. Colombo, Teologia Sacramentaria, Milan 1997, p. 63.
CHAPTER ONE
NATURE AND ACTION

I. Universal Nature
a. The Ad Ablabium
Gregory addresses Ablabius with a calm and paternal tone, reproaching
him for not having personally engaged himself to respond to the proposed question. The title Soldier of Christ, a citation of the second
letter to Timothy (2.3), situates Gregorys words in the context of a
teacher-disciple relationship, in which the teacher is an example and
model of obedience (
) for the disciple.1
The Nyssian species that it is not a small question, since, if it is
not properly treated, it can lead to one of two errors: the acceptance
of polytheism, or the negation of the divinity of the Son and of the
Spirit.
Thus he formulates the problem:
Peter, James and John, while belonging to the unique human nature, are
said to be three men; and it is not absurd by any means that those who
are united () according to nature, when they are more than one,
are enumerated in the plural on the base of the name of nature. So,
if in such a case usage permits it and nothing prohibits to say two of
those that are two and three of those that are [one] more than two, how
then do we, confessing in the mystical dogmas three hypostases and not
admitting any difference between them according to the nature, combat
in a certain way the confession of faith from the moment that we speak
of the unique divine nature of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit, but prohibit to speak of three gods?2
Cfr. AdAbl, GNO III/1, 37, 111.
,

, ! "
#$
% &' " ( ) * +
, - # ., /
+ 0 #
1
!
. - 2 ! / &&
3 4

5 $ 6
& #$
( & ! ( 7' &, 1, 1

1 &$ ) ! 7
5#$/ & 8 1 *
) +
&
+) /, 9
) 5#$:, ' *
/ ; / </ / =$ #$, ! &' (
#$
$; (Ibidem, 38, 818).
2
chapter one
One could say that the interaction between natural and supernatural is
at play here. This terminology is certainly modern, but the problem
posed is precisely that of establishing in what sense in God nature and
person are found, as well as the relationship of this to human nature and
person. It is more than simply a problem of language. The Council of
Constantinople and successive doctrinal clarications will consecrate the
, ! 7
one substance, three hypostasesof the
Cappadocians. Once this solution is accepted, the question is asked: how
does one apply the same principle to men? If man has an essence and
a hypostasis in the same sense that they are found in the Trinitarian
immanence, would it not be better to speak of three gods?
Gregory admits that the question is not easy. In fact, it is enough
to cause doubts and trembling before the dilemma. But, as always,
the tradition of the Fathers, faith and grace come rst, they are more
valuable than any reasoning.3
After a rst sketch of a response, more rhetorical than speculative,4
one might expect a refutation of the closeness of man to God on
Gregorys part. But it is not this way, and this step merits to be underscored. Essence and nature, or person and hypostasis are concepts that
can be predicated of either divine immanence or of men, essentially
economic beings.
Gregory surprises the reader, above all the contemporary one, afrming that it is, in the proper sense, erroneous to speak of many men:
We thus say above all that the habit to name in the plural, with the very
name of nature, those who are divided by nature and to say many men,
which is equivalent to saying many human natures, is an improper use of
the word.5
We are before a linguistic imprecision, since in fact there is but one

unique human nature and one unique man. The argument that proves
it is simple:
When we call someone, we do not name him according to nature, to
avoid that the commonness of the name leads to some error. For each of
those that listen could think to be he himself the one called, given that
Cfr. ibidem, 38, 1939, 7.

Where one would refuse to speak of three gods to avoid confusion with Greek polytheism (cfr. ibidem, 39, 1440, 2).
4
5
> ' 1 ' 9
.
; ( * &
?
+
8 ; ; + #
1 0@
#$
A
##
"
, A A

B #$
A
## +
C

. (Ibidem, 40, 59).
nature and action
he is called not with a particular appellative, but based upon the common name of nature. But in pronouncing the word imposed upon him
as properI intend that which signies the subjectwe distinguish him
from the multitude. Thus there are many who participate in the [same]
nature, for example disciples, apostles or martyrs, but one alone in all is
man, if it is true, as it was said, that man is constituted not by that which
is proper of each one, but of that which is common to the nature. Man,
in fact, is Luke or Stephen, nevertheless, if someone is man, this does not
mean certainly that he is also for that reason Luke or Stephen.6
The central point in the argument is that man is constituted by that

which is common to nature. Human nature is that which makes Luke
and Stephen to be men, and it is one.
Multiplicity is caused on the other hand, by the fact of being persons,
each with his own peculiar existence and proper distinctive particularities.
However, the concept of the hypostases admits division (; &

;),
by the properties that are manifested in each one, and are considered
numerically, according to composition ( )
). The nature is
on the other hand one, united in itself and a perfectly indivisible unity,
which does not augment by addition nor diminish by subtraction; but
that which it is, is unique and unique it remains, even if it appears in
multiplicity: undivided and permanent and perfect [unity], that is not
divided in the individuals that participate in it. And as [the words] of
crowd, people, army and assembly are all said in the singular, even if
each is thought in the plural, so, according to the more exact manner of
expression, one could also properly speak of a unique man, even though
those in whom that same nature is manifested are a multitude. It would
then be far better to correct our erred habit and not extend any more
the name of nature to the multiplicity, rather than, as slaves of this habit,
to transfer this error also to the divine dogma.7
6
#
$
, + ; 0@, D E 4

# 3
/ 0
4
, F 1 F ; .
; # @, A

* -&
@? $: ##8 /
/
+ 0 3 #
$
% ##) * -&

B (*
*
#$ / 7
) +* - , G ; 1 ##1 , H
##( ' .
( 9 +, + -! ) I # I
, J &' K
; ", L, M L
, 9 / 8 J ,
##) /
/ +C
5 "% " $) 5 NK I 5 O+ ,
4, L
", NK
I O+ . (Ibidem, 40, 1023).
7
P##8 5 ' 1 7 # $ &
) ) -&
FQ ;
&

;
&9
)

B !
% 3 &' +
,
* ; F * 3 &

1 , R &
)
4,
&
8 7+
, ##8 A S 2 S &

E #4
+
, "9
9* 5# # ! 9

! 8 J &

. H #$
# ; &
chapter one
Hypostasis is the source of plural predication. Nature is one and remains

always thus, indivisible and undivided, it does not augment or diminish. Nature is in this way also a collective concept, as the people or
the crowd are. So the erroneous habit8 should be corrected, and man
should only be used in the singular.
This task is nevertheless practically impossible, all the more so
since the imprecision is not source of any confusion when it refers to
human nature. The danger is quite different when we are dealing with
divine dogma, according to which God cannot but be predicated in
the singular.9
But, in order to better understand the extension of the afrmation
of AdAbl, it is necessary to examine in further detail the concept of
universal nature.
b. Universal Nature
We are dealing with a key element for the comprehension of the history
of Trinitarian dogma, despite the perplexity of certain scholars.10 After
the Council of Nicea, the majority of the Eastern bishops found it
# 91 , J &' #4

!
% G
) ;
# $ " T E U, E < +

&

# V
, D #( K## #1 69
* + # +8 31
/
4
- ;
; + ; #
I
? &# * W& # ; ! & $
@
. (Ibidem, 40,
2441, 15).
8
Gregory often speaks of 4
custom, habitin negative terms. The expression appears almost 180 times in the works of the Nyssian, in every stage of its development and in every type of writing (14 times in the AdAbl alone). Perhaps there is
evidence here of a character trait and an aspect of his intellectual physiognomy: the
quasi contempt for those who do not want to reect on faith and follow uncritically the
opinion of the masses. Gregory is a true intellectual in the purest sense of the term,
since he always seeks the truth. For this reason he knows also how to submit his own
intelligence to the faith, and can carry contempt as well for the technical heretics, such
as Eunomius, who oppose their reason to the truth itself.
9
Cfr. AdAbl, GNO III/1, 41, 1542, 12. In AdGraec, GNO III/1, 27, 412 Gregory
compares Sacred Scripture to a mother who teaches her children to speak, babbling
with them the words they can understand, but never compromising the proper form.
The same poetic image appears in CE II, GNO I, 348, 2427 (see p. 101).
10
K. Holl denes it tasteless (cfr. K. Holl, Amphilochius von Ikonium in seinem Verhltnis zu den grossen Kappadoziern dargestellt, Darmstadt 1969, p. 219) and G.C. Stead afrms
that it resembles an accomplished conjuring trick more nearly than a valid theological
demonstration (G.C. Stead, Why Not Three Gods?: The Logic of Gregory of Nyssas Trinitarian Doctrine, in H. DrobnerCh. Klock (dir), Studien zu Gregor von Nyssa und der Christlichen Sptantike, Leiden 1990, p. 149).
nature and action
difcult to accept the 5

, precisely due to the possible consequences of the application of human nature as an analogy for the
Trinity. In fact, in order to avoid the possibility of considering the Father
and Son as brothers or members of the same species, that is, to avoid
a certain coordination of the Trinity at the substantial level, some saw
the necessity of introducing a common as an independent entity
above the persons to guarantee of their unity. Apollinarius of Laodicea resolved the problem by introducing the analogy of the universal
humanity for the Trinity, understood in a specic sense:11 the Father, in
parallel with Adam,12 would represent the common . This would
eliminate the necessity of placing the essence before the persons, at the
same time preserving the fundamental principle of paternal Monarchy.
The price to pay was a small subordination on the substantial level.13
The Cappadocians, however, had before them Eunomius, supporter
of the
. With him the question was radically posed in terms
of the equality and diversity of the Father and the Son. Due to his
brand of subordinationism, the derived interpretation of the Trinity
in analogy with humanity was no longer sufcient to guarantee the
perfect equality of the three Persons.
The Cappadocians thus decided to avoid the derived model, but
surprisingly, they conserved the human analogy of the divine nature.
Their solution was to be completely original: coordination on the personal level,14 that is to say, on the level of the hypostasis.
However it would be necessary to nd an adequate conceptual
instrument to permit this passage. Gregory thus introduced a concept
of human nature that included both nature understood as sum of the
properties that characterize humanity, and nature as sum of human
beings. These are two distinct yet complimentary conceptions, enclosed
synthetically in a unique term: universal human nature. This is identical
in all men, and at the same time is cause, on the ontological level, of
11
The rst letter of Apollinaris to Basil seems the rst case of application of the
human analogy to the Trinity (cfr. Basil of Caesarea, Epistola 362; Y. Courtonne, Saint
Basile. Lettres, Paris 1966, pp. 222224).
12
Apollinaris probably knew the signication of the Hebrew term xadam, in connection with the idea of man.
13
The monograph of J. Zachhuber is a fundamental instrument for the comprehension of this period, above all of the years 350 to 370. Cfr. J. Zachhuber, Human Nature in
Gregory of Nyssa: Philosophical Background and Theological Signicance, Leiden 2000 (For this,
see in particular Chapter I).
14
Ibidem, pp. 238239.
chapter one
the fact that each of them is a man. This is the step that permits to
speak of all of humanity as of one man alone.
Such a doctrine is also perfectly reected in the divine economy. In
fact, for this reason God would have rst created the human nature, and
only successively Adam. The human descendence is created completely
in the same moment, potentially, in the pleroma, to develop throughout
time in the actual humanity. Thus the whole history of humankind
from creation to the eschaton is the development of human nature from
potential to actual completion.15 Theologically, it is essential to afrm
that is it is precisely this humanity, equal in every individual, that renders man similar to God:
When the text of Scripture says that God made man, it indicates with
the indetermination of the designation the whole of the human race
( 9 5 , ##8 5 #). For, now the creature is not called Adam,
as the narration says in the following. But, the name [given] to created
man is not that of the particular, but that of the whole. Therfore, from
the universal denomination of the nature ( #
+
#4
) we are led to retain (7!) that the whole of humanity was
included in the rst creation by the divine prescience and power ( :
$C
&
). For nothing indenite (
) should be
thought of God in that which has origin in Him. But each being has
a certain limit and a certain measure, dened (
) by the
wisdom of He who created [it] (
). As, then, the single man
is circumscribed by a certain corporeal quantity and the measure of his
concrete individuality ( 7) is for him dimension, which corresponds exactly to the external appearance of the body; thus I think
that the whole pleroma of humanity was enclosed as in one body by the
prescient power of the God of the universe and that this is taught by the
text [of the Scripture] in saying both that God created man and that He
made him at the image of God.16
15
Ibidem, p. 240.
X-M 5 # $ A
5 Y; ; ", B Q
Z &
; C
. [ $) B
/ 5 P&),
M ! +R 3 < +% ##8 B

CQ 9 5 ,
##8 5 # . [ / #
+ #4

/
7!
$ , A
: $C
&
K 3 C?

#
. \* $) YB &'
! $$
8 /
@
% ##8 F 1 .
, /
+:

. ] 5 " B ) ; 1 B
$
,
B 7 3 #
, 3
@
+ :
/ C % G .
C
A# ; #4
$
&
) / Y/ 1 #
9
, / &
&

; # $ ; - , A
5 Y; ; ", 8 - Y/
. (DeHom, PG 44, 185BC).
16
nature and action
Commenting this passage of the DeHom and placing it in relation with

the AdAbl, H. de Lubac speaks of The man according to the Image,
object of a direct and atemporal creation, that is each of us and makes
us so profoundly one that, no more than one does not talk of three
gods, should one never talk of men in the plural.17
There would thus be two creations: a rst creation of all of humanity, and a second creation of the single man, that is of Adam. This is
the base of universality (5 #), because human nature is created
by God as if it were only one body. It is important to note that this
rst creation comes about through the divine prescience and power
( : $C
&
). This precludes an interpretation
that would be simply Neoplatonic of this rst humanity.18 The call to
prescience suggests that God anticipates in some way in his creative
act that which will manifest itself little by little throughout time. Such
an observation is conrmed by the amplitude of the concept of nature
that, as will be seen, reunites in itself both the whole of individual men
and that which renders each of them a man.
This conception of nature has well dened characteristics that make
it a bridging concept, one that can be applied either to man or to
God. The rst of these characteristic is immutability.
In fact, in CE I Gregory responds to Eunomius reasoning per absurdum:
even if the Father were anterior to the Son, it would not be enough
to negate their consubstantiality. David was separated from Abraham
by fourteen generations, but both were of the same substance and
nature.19 Not only this, for Abel and Adam were generated in different
manners, and yet their nature is the same.20 The differences are not
from the natural level, but only from the personal level. Thus, again
in CE I, the example of three men already appears: Peter, James and
17
LHomme selon lImage, objet dune cration directe et intemporelle, qui est en
chacun de nous et qui nous fait si profondment un que, pas plus quon ne parle de trois
dieux, on ne devrait jamais parler dhommes au pluriel (H. de Lubac, Catholicisme, Paris
1952, p. 7).
18
E. Corsini comments: La cration du plrme de lhumanit nest expliquer
ni comme la cration dune ide platonicienne ni comme la cration dun # de
type stocien: cest une faon dexprimer le caractre intemporel et instantan de lacte
crateur divin (E. Corsini, Plrme humain et plrme cosmique chez Grgoire de Nysse, in
M. Harl (ed.), criture et culture philosophique dans la pense de Grgoire de Nysse, Leiden 1971,
p. 123).
19
Cfr. CE I, GNO I, 78.
20
Cfr. ibidem, GNO I, 162. The same is repeated regarding the image and likeness of
Adam and Seth, in RCE, GNO II, 357.
chapter one
John are one thing regarding the substance, each one being a man,
but they differ by personal properties.21 This is a favored example of
the Nyssian.22
The parallel between the Trinity and humanity is clear: As in Adam
and in Abel there is only one humanity, so also in the Father and in
the Son there is only one Divinity.23
If fact, not even for man can one say properly that they were generated when they did not exist, since Levi was already in Abraham, in
as much as man exists in that which is common to nature.24 In human
generation, this is not broken with each new man that is born, but is
transmitted in its entirety. All the less then, can one speak of inferiority
of the Son in regard to the Father in the divine generation.25
The nature, therefore, does not change, it remains the same through
the succession of generations without consuming or deteriorating:
And in fact, on the basis of time the limits of nature cannot be xed for
each one, but it remains in itself, conserving itself through the generations
that follow upon each other. Time on the other hand moves on in its
proper manner, either encircling or running past nature, which remains
rm and immutable in its proper limits.26
Precisely for this reason, since Adam did not generate in Abel a nature
diverse from himself, but instead generated another self in communicating to him the whole of human nature, Gregory afrms that one must
take as guide human nature to elevate oneself to the pure knowledge
of the divine dogmas (.
&! * 4 1
&$
- 5&$ # !).27
Clearly this afrmation appeared hardy to the ears of his adversaries,
and earned for Gregory in diverse occasions the accusation of tritheism.
21

It appears in AdGraec, GNO III/1, 21, 45; 22, 1822; 23, 424; 25, 2023; AdAbl,
GNO III/1, 38, 89; 54,34; Ep 38, PG 32, 325B; Antir, GNO III/1, 165,1213. It was
already present in Basil (cfr. Basil of Caesarea, Contra Eunomium II, 4, PG 29, 577C and
580AB (SC 305, pp. 1822), together with De Spiritu Sancto, 17; SC 17, pp. 185186).
22
H / P&) / ^# , G / ;
/ </ . (AdSimp, GNO III/1, 65, 2224).
23
24
25

Cfr. RCE , GNO II, 318319 and 349.
26
&' $) B 9 Q 6
+@
FQ ) +, ##) * '
+8 F
&
) 1
$
F * / % 5 &' 9 +
)
; L&
L
9 L * +
$
! -&
A
. (CE I, GNO I, 78, 2227).
27
Cfr. CEIII, GNO II, 27.
nature and action
For if the unity of the Trinity is identical to that which exists among
men, one should speak of three gods. Surely the procedure of the Nyssian is extremely audacious, above all because it applies to God and men
not only the same conception of nature, but also of hypostasis. All of
the AdAbl is an attentive reection that manages with great equilibrium,
to avoid tritheist confusion, without negating that either man or the
Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit are persons, as 7
and as
. Perhaps the polemical concentration on the role of nature
in the theology of Gregory, and in general of the Cappadocians, led
in the past to neglect the importance of this last aspect of Gregory,
all the more fundamental because the Greek world did not know the
difference between nature and hypostasis.28 In recent years valid studies
have attempted to repair this lacuna.29
The error of those who accused and accuse Gregory of tritheism
consists essentially in the interpretation of divine nature based on the
unity of human nature. Thus forgetting that the original unity of human
nature is properly and only an image of the unity of the divine nature.
For this reason, against the Anomeans, Gregory cites Gn 1.26 and afrms:
He who said Let us make man in our image and with the plural indication
manifested the Holy Trinity would not have referred to the image in the
singular, if the models were diverse () the one from the other.
For it would not be possible to indicate a unique image of beings that do
not coincide between them. But if the natures were different, He would
certainly have been principle of different images, creating the image that
would correspond to each [nature].30
The procedure to understand the whole of the Nyssians theology consists in moving from above to below. Every analogy, every image that
Gregory uses, is based in the profound and advanced elaboration of
the doctrine of creation. Thus, rather than analogy, it would be katalogy,
to use a privileged expression of von Balthasar.31
28
Cfr. B. de Margerie, Chalcdoine, Hier, Aujourdhui et Demain, EeV 92 (1982) 305;
Idem, La Trinit chrtienne dans lhistoire, Paris 1975, pp. 137146 and B. Sesbo, Le procs
contemporain de Chalcdoine. Bilan et perspectives, RSR 65 (1977) 4580.
29
See references in part V of Chapter II (pp. 117125).
30
_ $),
4 " 8 - 3 , -M, &
)
#
* =$ `
& &#C , E - &
1
4, L S9
; "### ) 9 . [ $) a & ; 1
##4#
*
- b &
9
5 % ##8 - &
+
a <
+
, &
+ ) - 1 4 , * ### F?
&
$4 . (DeHom, PG 44, 140).
31
Cfr. the study on von Balthasars fundamental theology: W. Klaghofer, Gotteswort
10
chapter one
c. Nature and Essence
Gregory is certainly conscious of problems behind a weak understanding

of the social analogy.32 He thus is preoccupied to explain the distinctions
between the application of the term nature to the Trinity and to man.
In the AdAbl, the Nyssian limits the argument to the unity of action,
as will be seen in Section III of the present chapter. In the AdGraec he
develops more fully the delicate theme:
The denition of man (5 A 5 / C) is not always observed in
the same individuals, that is in the same persons (C
). For while
those born rst reach the end, others are formed to occupy their place;
and still, while the same continue to exist, others come into existence after
them, in such a way that the denition of the nature, that is of man, is
observed now in these and then those, and now in a greater number [of
individuals], and again in a lesser number.33
Thus the mutability of the number of men leads to the normal custom
(
) of the improper use of the term substance also
for persons, passing beyond the absolute principle of the substance
( c ; ; # $).34
However in the Trinity the Persons are always Three, and their
number does not change.35 Further, while the Father is the unique
cause of the Son and of the Spirit, men receive their existence from
diverse persons,36 and not directly from ( ) ; 9') a unique
person.37 Finally there is no separation between the divine Persons,
neither spatial nor temporal nor of any other type, while this is not
the case among men.38
im Menschenwort. Inhalt und Form von Theologie nach Hans Urs von Balthasar, Innsbruck-Wien
1992.
32
References to the meaning of this expression, in both Gregory and in modern
theology, can be found in C. Plantinga, Gregory of Nyssa and the Social Analogy of the Trinity,
Thom. 50 (1986) 325352.
33
5 A 5 / C ! !
e$ C
!
%
1 ' $) #C J 8 1
#
1 1
##
"##
)
$
, D ' '
, ' &'
,
' ' #
, ' &' 0#
$
!
; + e$ /
C A. (AdGreac, GNO III/1, 24, 17).
34
Cfr. ibidem, 24, 1114.

36
Cfr. ibidem, 24, 2625, 8.
37
It is important to underline that all men have origin in Adam through mediation.
This passage is also interesting to see how, for Gregory, the Spirit procedes directly from
the Father, even if the Son has a role in this procession as will be seen in Chapter III.
38
Cfr. AdGreac, 25, 817.
35
nature and action
11
The difference between the Trinity and man is that the Trinity is
uncreated, while man is created and thus subject to the laws of change
and spatio-temporal separation (&
).
To understand this difference more in depth, one must analyze the
relationship between and +
in Gregorian theology. In this
context Danilous observation, that between man and God one can
speak of a communion of nature, but not of a communion of essence,
is very important (cfr. note 147 at p. 138). Ultimately, the question
being raised is why is it in the Calcedonian symbol that +
appears
but not .
Interestingly, Gregory in some passages uses and +
synonymously, for example in the already cited passage on the identity of
nature of Abraham and David.39 Nevertheless, Zachhuber nds a difference between the two concepts in his analysis of Ep 38: the rst would
be exclusively intensive, indicating that which makes each man a man;
while the second would be extensive, indicating the totality of men.40
Still following Zachhuber, it would appear that in the AdGraec,
Gregory tends to use the term in a more extensive rather than
intensive sense, more similar to that of +
. Rather than invoking a
development in the Nyssians thought, it is worth noting the particular case of the AdGraec, which was written as an attempt to resolve
the Antiochian schism, probably for the synod of 379 in Antioch, in
which Gregory took part.41 It is thus reasonable to think of a treatise
that uses particular terminology, one which does not mirror perfectly
the theology of the Nyssian himself, but written in order to mediate
and respect the requirements of all those participating in the synod.
The hypothesis is conrmed by the 96 occurrences of the term
compared to the only 6 for +
in this treatise. In the AdAbl (4/62)
and the AdEust (3/30) the relationship is the opposite, while in Ep 38 the
39
Cfr. p. 7.
41
Cfr. R. Hbner, Gregor von Nyssa und Markell von Ankyra, in M. Harl (ed.), criture et
culture philosophique dans la pense de Grgoire de Nysse, Leiden 1971, pp. 208209. D. Stramara contests this dating and situates the AdGraec in the context of the discussions during the second Ecumenical Council. But the result for the present discussion does not
change substantially, since the author maintains that the purpose of the treatise was
for explaining the term , not the theological metaphysics of 7
and
(cfr. D.F. Stramara, Gregory of Nyssa, Ad Graecos How It Is That We Say There Are
Three Persons In The Divinity But Do Not Say There Are Three Gods (To The Greeks: Concerning
the Commonality of Concepts), GOTR 41 (1996) 377).
40
12
chapter one
two terms appear in a homogenous relationship (19/11).42 Further, as

the next section will show, it is precisely in the AdGraec that the Nyssian
refers the term to the divine essence, contrary to his conviction
that this term derives from the divine activity$
of seeing,
or at best, that it is referable to nature, according to the thought of
most. One cannot appeal to the anteriority of the AdGraec to explain
the difference with the development of Gregorys thought, since in the
almost contemporary AdEust 43 the idea that derives from to see
is already present.
The analysis of the AdAbl leads to quite different conclusions: the
only four occurrences of are always in dependence on the divine
+
. In 43,20, after having afrmed that certain names express
particular aspects of that which can be thought of the divine nature,
Gregory negates the existence of names that can say what God is by
essence, c . The same formula appears in 55,14, where he
afrms that the simple and immutable divine nature refuses all difference according to essence (* c F ). This appears
in the immediately preceding paragraph (55,12), at the interior of an
afrmation that if there were difference of nature in the Trinity, there
would necessarily also be diversity of essence for the subjects. The
fourth reference is 55,2, where Gregory explains that the Scripture
does not use the term God in the plural to avoid eventual thoughts of
a multiplicity of natures in the divine .
Clearly we are not before synonyms. At the same time, the rst
example above all shows that nature possesses a dynamic character,
but at the same time it has an incomprehensible intensive and static
aspect, its aspect. The logical passage is quite important,
since it is a defense against the accusation of tritheism, and the Nyssian applies the term +
to both men and to the divine hypostases.
If the conception of nature was purely extensive, his accusers would
be right. Instead, +
has for Gregory an ontological depth, which
is explained by the c and the passages just cited.
42
The same is true for the three books of the CE and for the RCE. It is worth noting
beyond this, that the term +
is more numerous and more homogeneously distributed in the Nyssian works than the term , in conformity to the largeness of its
signication and to its synthetic and dynamic function. B. Krivocheine observes that the
opposite is true of Basil: he prefers essence to nature (cfr. B. Krivocheine, Simplicit de la
nature divine et les distinctions en Dieu selon Grgoire de Nysse, StPatr 16 (1985) 389, n. 1).
43
Cfr. T. Ziegler, Les petits traits de Grgoire de Nysse, Strasbourg 1987, pp. 164165.
nature and action
13
The extensive aspect of +

is also an essential element, because
it manages to express the inseparability of the concepts of and
7
. In fact, with the words of Zachhuber: The Cappadocian
author understands hupostasis as by nature individualizing the ousia (to
which it is thus tied) while, conversely, the latter subsists only in particular hupostaseis. Thus, this latter notion provides at the same time for
a connection between ousia and hupostasis which is important; both are
interdependent. While the hupostasis cannot even be thought of without
the ousia, the latter could not exist except through the former.44 C.
von Schnborn states clearly as well: the substance does not exist as
such, without concrete subsistence ( ), it subsists (7+
)
only in individuals.45 So the distinction between and 7

would be found only on the intellectual level, that is : ?, to
use the formula that Canon VII of Constantinople II applied, in 553,
to the two natures of Christ.
In this manner, the synthetic duplicity of the concept of nature in
the thought of the Nyssian permits to better understand the important
signication of the passage of DeHom 16 just cited (see p. 6): Man is
the image of God in as much as nature. This means that the image
will be perfect only when all the persons that God has created in his
prevision will be united into one. We are dealing with the authentic
Catholic principle, since difference and variety become essential and are
at the service of unity. At the same time, the extensive whole is image
because each individual man is image, in as much as the intensive aspect
of nature renders him man. The equilibrium between whole and part
is perfect. Both are necessary, both are the Image.
On the theological level, it is precisely the newness presented by the
extensive aspect of nature that resumes in itself this connection. In this
sense the Nyssian theology offers an interesting path for contemporary
philosophy as well, which, after the personalist and relational movement,
has unintentionally weakened and almost corrupted the ontological
foundation of the person.46 For Gregory, instead, one cannot conceive
44
J. Zachhuber, Human Nature . . ., pp. 7677.

la substance (ousia) nexiste pas comme telle, sans subsistance concrte ( ), elle subsiste (7+
) seulement dans les individus (C. Schnborn, Licne
du Christ, Paris 1986, pp. 4243).
46
See the criticisms of F. Ocriz to the modern concept of person that, even in
Mouniers work, is deprived of a true unity, which can only be guaranteed by its act
of being (cfr. F. Ocriz, Naturaleza, gracia, gloria, Pamplona 2000, pp. 5051). It seems
then, that the understanding of the concept of universal nature, situated in the context
45
14
chapter one
of the hypostasis except in its nature, which guarantees the ontological substrate.
To understand the intensity of Gregorys +
, it is thus important
to clarify his concept of . Basil, in the above cited Contra Eunomium
II, 4 (SC 305, pp. 1822), opposes himself to Eunomiuss pretext that
to different names correspond different essences, citing the example
of men who, while having different names, share the same essence.
This passage of Basil becomes a central point in the dispute between
Gregory and Eunomius. Both cite the Basilian text.
D.L. Bals is to be recognized for the observation of the change
that the Nyssian operates regarding the text of his brother.47 In fact,
in CEIII, after having repeated the traditional argument that, in those
that carry different names such as Peter and Paul, one distinguishes the
unity of essence ( &' ) from the distinctive properties
of each (! &' -&
C

! J
),
Gregory writes:
Thus, when we hear the name Peter, with the name we think of the substance ( )by substance I do not intend now the material substrate
(; 7#
; 7), but we are impressed by the consideration of
the particular properties that are observed in him.48
The afrmation that by substance is not intended material substrate is

surprising, exactly the opposite of the Basilian text.49 D.L. Bals has
veried accurately the possibility that it was an error in either the Nyssian or Basilian text. For the Nyssian text, he had the critical edition
at hand, which permitted to immediately eliminate the possibility. For
the Basilian text, D.L. Bals was able to conrm the reading without
both in the numerous existing Greek manuscripts and in the Syriac
translation.50 This reading was later conrmed by the critical edition of
B. Sesbo.51 In addition, Gregory explains the consubstantiality of the
of the theology of the image, can spare one from the psychological reductionism justly
combated by the work group of S. Coakley.
47
Cfr. D. Bals, The Unity of human nature in Basils and Gregory of Nyssas polemics against
Eunomius, StPatr 14 (1976) 275281.
48
A 2 , * / / / 0
( &' #$ / ; 7#
; 7), ##) 1 -&
1 ;
* 6
. (CEIII, GNO II, 168, 14).
49
50
51
Basil of Caesarea, Contra Eunomium II, 4; SC 305, p. 20.

Cfr. D.L. Bals, The Unity of human . . ., pp. 277279.
Cfr. B. Sesbo, Basile de Csare. Contre Eunome, SC 305, Paris 1983, p. 20.
nature and action
15
Father and Son with the social analogy52 to defend himself from the
accusation of Eunomius to Basil, claiming that he passed improperly
from the material to intelligible realities. This would only make sense
if Basil conceived of the substance as a material substrate. Thus, in
distinguishing the divine and the human, Gregory attributes to both
consubstantiality, but corruptibility only to the second, due to the fact
of being material, not to the fact of being consubstantial.53 Once again
the strength of the Nyssian is the clear distinction between created and
uncreated, a true foundation for his whole doctrinal construction.
D.L. Bals attributes to Gregory himself the correction of the Basils
text.54 Basil conceived of the of creatures as a common matter
from which they were composed, in continuity with Athanasius and
his Stoic conception. The Nyssian position is far more original: original enough that scholars had discussed for quite some time as to the
Platonic or Aristotelian character of the Gregorian idea of nature.55
This itself was sic et simpliciter identied with essence. The two positions
were considered to be radically opposed.56
It was again D.L. Bals himself who for the rst time exited this
radical dichotomy, recognizing the originality of Gregory: Gregorys
teaching on the unity of nature in the many individuals is neither simply Aristotelian Logic nor Platonic Ontology.57 Gregory thought
of a true and real unity of nature, but did not conceive of the unique
essence as a separate existent from individuals. His conception is thus
an authentic Christian transformation of the Neoplatonic logic and
ontology.
52
Cfr. CEIII, 5, 48, GNO II, 177, 27178, 1.

Cfr. CEIII, 5, 62, GNO II, 183, 58.
54
For the relationship of dependence and independence of Gregory to Basil, see
J. Danilou, Ltre et le Temps chez Grgoire de Nysse, Leiden 1970, p. 18.
55
Among the supporters of a reading of Platonic realism for the Nyssian are found:
O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der Altkirchlichen Literatur III, Freiburg im Breisgau 1913; Th.
de Rgnon, Etudes de thologie positive sur la sainte Trinit, III, Paris 1892; S. Gonzlez, El
realismo platnico de S. Gregorio de Nisa, Gr. 20 (1939) 189206; R. Arnou, Unit numrique et
unit de nature chez les Pres aprs le Concile de Nice, Greg. 15 (1934) 242254; L. Malevez,
Lglise dans le Christ. tude de thologie historique et thorique, RSR 25 (1935) 257291; 418
439. Other scholars have raised doubts about this, for example K. Holl, Amphilochius von
Ikonium in seinem Verhltnis zu den grossen Kappadoziern dargestellt, Darmstadt 1969. Others
yet have negated this explicitly, maintaining instead that Gregory depends here upon
Aristotelianism: E. von Ivnka, Von Platonismus zur Theorie der Mystik, Schol. 11 (1936)
163195.
56
Cfr. M. Gomes de Castro, Die Trinittslehre des Gregor von Nyssa, Freiburg 1938, p. 90.
57
D.L. Bals, The Unity of human . . ., p. 280.
53
16
chapter one
R. Hbner moves in the same direction,58 even if his position seems

less objective than that of D.L. Bals, both for his open anti-Platonism
and for his less complete analysis.59 Nevertheless his conclusion is identical: the necessity to study at once the intensive and extensive aspects
of nature in Gregory.60
More recently J. Zachhuber has affronted this type of analysis vigorously. Referring to the use of human nature as the total whole of the
characteristic human properties and as the totality of human beings, he
concludes thus: While these two views could be used loosely by Gregory
at times, it appeared that they were often applied in a systematic way.
In this latter case, the two notions were distinct but complementary
to each other. In the former, the properties would be indicative of an
entity that is the same in all human individuals and is the cause of their
being as well of their being humans. The latter notion would indicate
that this immanent item occurs in so many individuals and nowhere
else; the existence of that human race as such would thus be due to
one property of that former entity and would, indeed, be one aspect
of it.61 Gregorys doctrine of creation remains fundamental.
As far as the philosophical origin of the concept of universal nature,
B. Pottier has given a good analysis of the position of R. Hbner. The
key would be the interplay of rst substance (C ) and second substance (& ): the rst would represent the concrete
individual and the second the species. For Gregory the rst would
correspond to 7
and the second to , which would never
exist in and by itself according to the reconstruction of R. Hbner. B.
Pottier contests this last afrmation, maintaining that for Gregory the
concept of is theological and not philosophical: it would resume
in itself the characteristics of both the C and the &
. The distinction of the two would be found only at the level of
creation, where the material substrate introduces separation. For God
this would not be the case, for in him is found subsistence, as in the
C , but at the same time immateriality, as in the &
58
R. Hbner, Die Einheit des Leibes Christi bei Gregor von Nyssa, Leiden, 1974.
He limits himself to Ep 38.
60
G.L. Prestige afrms that nature bears rather on function, while ousia is metaphysical and bears on reality. In this way he concentrates his attention principally on the
connection nature-activity and less upon the connection of ousia-nature. For this reason
his analysis cannot be applied to this aspect of Nyssian doctrine. (Cfr. G.L. Prestige,
God in Patristic Thought, London 1952, pp. 234235).
61
J. Zachhuber, Human Nature . . ., pp. 239240.
59
nature and action
17
.62 One can see that the difference of the Nyssian conception of
substance, both for man and for God, from that of Basil is precisely
because of the absence of a material substrate. For this reason, the interesting and profound analysis of Pottier, despite his intentions, risks to
not give a great enough place to +
, considered as a simple synonym
of .63 From a philosophical perspective, the problem is situated in
the difcult interpretation of the & of Aristotle: it is not
clear if it assumes an extensive value in the Stagarites thought.
Thus the most exhaustive and balanced analysis appears to be that
of Zachhuber: it would seem that the Nyssian interpretation of man
as the whole of all men would have its origin in the interpretation
of Aristotle elaborated by the Peripatetic school, which gave to the
& , a clear extensive sense. The Isagoge of Porphyrius is
thus particularly relevant.64 Stoic inuences appear to have played a
role only through the effects that they had on the principle NeoplatonicAristotelian movement.65
One could thus propose the hypothesis by which the concept of
universal nature is a highly original Nyssian synthesis of a Platonic
elementthe intensive aspect, immutable and always identical to itself,
that is, of the +
considered as and of a second element of Aristotelian originthe extensive aspect, that is the totality
of all men. Whatever the nal solution, one should never forget that
Gregory uses philosophy with a great liberty, and is always guided
in the use of terms and in terminological creativity by theological
preoccupations.66
d. Nature and Time

After having underlined the importance of the extensive aspect of
human nature in the theology of Gregory, it is necessary to develop
a second aspect intimately connected with the preceding one. It was
noted that the fundamental difference between +
in the Trinity
and in man is the spacio-temporal dimension. Human nature is a
62
Cfr. B. Pottier, Dieu et le Christ selon Grgoire de Nysse, Turnhout 1994, pp. 9597.
Ibidem, p. 106.
64
J. Zachhuber, Human Nature . . ., p. 86.
65
Ibidem, p. 93.
66
H. von Balthasar refers to the Nyssian synthesis with the phrase nouveaut irrductible (cfr. H. von Balthasar, Prsence et pense, Paris 1947, p. xv).
63
18
chapter one
unique nature that develops and extends in time and history.67 This
is not limited to the multiplication of individuals, but determines the
very mode of being of the nature of single individuals. The historical
aspect of human nature has its foundation in Trinitarian reection,
but it is fully manifested in Nyssian Christology.68 So in order to fully
understand the concept of nature in Gregorys theology, it is necessary
to analyze his doctrine of the Incarnation, that is to pass from a more
theological moment to another more economical one.
The economy, which develops in temporal succession, is signed by the
laws of # and &
. It has its centre in the Incarnation
of the Eternal, who became man. There are four times in human life,
that in Christ become the times of every man: conception, birth, death
and resurrection.69 From an all too human perspective, one sees but
birth and death. But the two extremes are more important, since they
place man in more intimate contact with God. As B. Pottier explains:
Christ is conceived, born, dies and rises: such are the four essential
moments of the Incarnation of the Son, come from God and returning
to God in a sort of exitus-reditus which manifests, at the interior of the
economy, the complete movement of temporal creation freely desired
by the Eternal God, and freely returning to him.70
67
Cfr. D.L. Bals, Plenitudo Humanitatis: The Unity of Human Nature in the Theology of
Gregory of Nyssa, in D.F. Winslow (Ed.), Disciplina Nostra: Essays in Memory of Robert F.
Evans, Cambridge MA 1979, 115133.
68
On the value and inuence of Gregorys Christology, not always fully recognized,
see G. Maspero, La cristologa de Gregorio de Nisa desde la perspectiva del II Concilio de Costantinopla, ScrTh 36 (2004) 124; L.F. Mateo-Seco, Notas sobre el lenguaje cristolgico de Gregorio
de Nisa, ScrTh 35 (2003) 89112 and Idem, Cristologia e Linguaggio in Gregorio di Nissa, in C.
MoreschiniG. Menestrina (Eds.), Lingua e teologia nel cristianesimo greco, Trento 1112
dicembre 1997, Brescia 1999, pp. 227249.
69
For birth and conception, see M. Canvet, Lhumanit de lembryon selon Grgoire de
Nysse, NRT 114 (1992) 678695 and Ph. Caspar, Comment les Pres de lEglise envisagent le
statut de lembryon humain, Connaissance des Pres de lEglise 52 (1993) 1618. For the
death and resurrection: L.F. Mateo-Seco, Consideraciones en torno a la muerte en las homilas
al Eclesiasts de Gregorio de Nisa, ScrTh 23 (1991) 921937; Idem, La teologa de la muerte en la
Oratio catechetica magna de San Gregorio de Nisa, ScrTh 1 (1969) 453473; Idem, La muerte y su
ms all en el Dialogus de anima et resurrectione de San Gregorio de Nisa, ScrTh 3 (1971) 71107;
Idem, Resucit al tercer da (Anlisis de la doctrina de San Gregorio de Nisa sobre la Resurreccin de Jesucristo), ScrTh 5 (1973) 789; R. Winling, La rsurrection du Christ comme principe explicatif et
comme lment structurant dans le Discours catchtique de Grgoire de Nysse, StPatr 22 (1990) 7480.
70
Le Christ est conu, nat, meurt et ressuscite: tels sont donc les quatre moments
essentiels de lincarnation du Fils, venu de Dieu et retournant Dieu dans une sorte
dexitus-reditus qui expose, au centre de lconomie, le mouvement complet du cr temporel librement voulu par le Dieu ternel, et retournant librement lui (B. Pottier, Dieu
et le Christ selon Grgoire de Nysse, Turnhout 1994, p. 360).
nature and action
19
Before his Incarnation the man Jesus did not exist. He is the Creator
become creature.71 His body is not an eternal body at the interior of
the Trinity, as Apollinarius would have it. Economy and immanence are
well distinguished; neither Incarnation nor creation change the Trinity.
At the other extreme, death and resurrection seal the accomplishment of the Incarnation: The death and resurrection of Christ bring
something new to union of man and God in him, in respect to the
event of the Incarnation.72
Perhaps this can be disturbing, causing one to suspect that for
Gregory the work of divine power was insufcient in the Incarnation.
It is necessary to understand that the problem is not from the part of
the eternal God, fully present from the rst moment of the Incarnation. The problem arises from the part of man, since the experience
of death is part of human life, each human life: it completes humanity.
The course of human life brings something to man, body and soul,
and the experience of death is the last and not least of the structuring
moments of humanity.73
In fact Gregory comments And the Word became esh of Jn 1.14,
responding to the accusation of Eunomius that claimed that he divided
the Word and Christ into two distinct beings, the eternal and the temporal, the immanent and economic. One sees again that the Johannine
prologue is at the roots of the whole of the Nyssians thought: Gregory
responds that the same accusation should be thrown at the Evangelist
as well. Instead he knew well that:
The Word is identical to the Word, he who appeared in the esh to he
who is with God (; ; ;). But the esh was not identical to the
Divinity before being transformed to be also with the Divinity (; *
). In such a way that certain properties apply to the Word as
God, and others to the form of the servant.74
71
Cfr. AdSimpl, GNO III/1, 63, 13.

la mort et la Rsurrection du Christ apportent quelque chose de nouveau
lunion de lhomme et de Dieu en lui, par rapport lvnement de lIncarnation (M.
Canvet, La mort du Christ et le mystre de sa personne humano-divine dans la thologie du IVme
sicle, Les Quatre Fleuves 1516 (1982) 86).
73
Le cours de la vie terrestre apporte quelque chose lhomme, corps et me, et
lexprience de la mort est le dernier, et non le moindre, des moments structurants de
lhumanit. (B. Pottier, Dieu et le Christ . . ., p. 363).
72
74
5 ' # $ 5
B # $Q 5 + B ; ; ;
. 3 &'
)R 9 3 *

; * , D R
$ "## ' + @
B B # $Q, J &' / &# +. (CEIII,
GNO II, 130, 15).
20
chapter one
The divine nature is always the same,75 while human nature changes
and comes to be: The Word was before all time, while the esh came
to be in the last times.76 This last is of a passible nature and must
know the trial of death.77
So the whole time of human life is necessary in order for man to
be open to God, to the innite where all ceases to be a valid category.
Life opens to the epektasis. One must give all in order to receive all. One
gives a limited all to enter into the intimacy of the innite all. Whole
and all are in fact key words. The whole of human life must be lived
and saved by Christ:
And since human life has two limits, that from which we have a beginning
and that in which we have an end, he who heals our entire life (@)
necessarily embraces us through the two extremes, grasping both our
beginning and our end, to lift, from both, he who is fallen.78
Incarnation and resurrection cannot be separated. Man is conceived in

his integrity and every moment of his existence is important.
Gregory does not limit himself to the terminology of life, but
explains this necessity in terms of nature. In the Antir, he collocates
interestingly into thy hands I commit my Spirit,79 and today you will be with
me in Paradise:80 Christ opens the doors of Paradise which is found in
the large palm of the hand of the Father 81 to the Good Thief in his death,
when his soul separated from his body. In this manner Christ destroyed
the corruption of death, dividing that which was composed, that is his
own body and own soul, he who in his divinity was not composed, and
for this reason, immune from dissolution. The nature of that which
is not composed (the Divinity) dwells in that which is composed (the
Humanity), and the soul which was separated from the body in death,
after the Resurrection knows no separation at all. The sign and proof
of this is the incorruptibility of the body and existence of the soul in
75
76
3 ' +
3 * D 69 (Ibidem, 130, 1112).
5 # $ ; 1 -C a, 3 )R &' 1 9 $ 9 (Ibidem,
130, 1920).
77
Cfr. ibidem, 130, 2226.
78

&* & @, A 9 - g
#4$, $ 5 K 31 * @* &
) 1 & " 3K

, 9 31 / #
& , h R +
7iC? ; . (Ep 3, GNO VIII/2, 25, 1622).
79
80
81
Lk 23.46.
Lk 23.43.
#9CQ / ; #? (Antir, GNO III/1, 153, 2223).
nature and action
21
Paradise. This new form of existence cannot be divided, since that

which was divided is united to that which cannot be divided.82 Therefore Gregory continues:
However the same Only-Begotten God causes the man who is united
( ) to him to rise, at once separating the soul from the body
and reuniting anew the two: in this way is realized the common salvation of nature (3
* $
+). For this he is called
Author of life (9$; @). In fact, the Only-Begotten God, dying for
us and rising, has reconciled to himself the cosmos, ransoming with esh
and blood, as of prisoners of war, all of us, who through ties of blood
(&
) / $$/ 31 h ) have part in him.83
The common salvation of nature must thus pass through the death
and resurrection of the Only-Begotten of God.
L. Malevez perhaps does not underscore sufciently the importance
of this idea for the Nyssian theology of the Incarnation.84 Nevertheless
it is a key element, since it reveals that nature is not understood only
statically. Gregory afrms that the Incarnation encompasses all the
moments of mans life:
In fact [God] united himself to humanity through these thingsthat is by
passing through all the states of nature (1 + -&
): generation, nutrition and growth, nally having even the experience of death.85
From conception until death, all belongs to nature, which is thus extended in some manner through time.
In Chapter 32 of OrCat Gregory returns to the same argument.
The Incarnation includes a participation in all the stages of human
nature, from one extreme to the other of life. Christ wants to reach
even to death in order to revivify us through his resurrection. In him
the resurrection becomes part of that which is human:
82
Cfr. Antir, GNO III/1, 153, 27154, 7.
##8 5 $* ; ;

; " B
9 / C * i9* FC #
+ G 3
*
$
+% A 9$; @ 0@
% $) B 7' 31

$
; F B 4## R 5 $* , T

& #C, 3K &
) / $$/ 31 h (

B ; / h R (Ibidem, GNO III/1, 154, 1118).
83
84
Cfr. L. Malevez, LEglise dans le Christ. Etude de thologie historique et thorique, RSR 25
(1935) 279280.
85
&
W $) 9
(&
) 1 + -&

$ $C + R4 9
/
&
R#C (OrCat, GNO III/4, 67, 1518).
22
chapter one
Since, therefore, it was necessary that our whole nature be lifted up from
death, as if reaching out a hand towards he who lay, bending himself over
our cadaver, he came so close to death as to touch the mortal condition
and to give in his own body a principle of resurrection to human nature,
lifting up together potentially ( &
) the whole of man (A# ;
"). In fact the man that had received God (5 & 9 ")
did not have a different origin than our species (+ ), that is he
who was raised with the divinity in the resurrection; and as in our body
the activity of one organ alone leads to the total perception of the whole
united to the part, as if the nature as a whole was a unique living being,
the resurrection of the part propagates to the whole, by the conjunction
and unity of nature, transmitting itself from the part to the whole.86
The delicate piety of Gregory presents Christ to us bending down as

the good Samaritan over man. He does not need to touch his friend
Lazarus to raise him from the dead, but he wishes to touch death to
raise us.
A key point is the mode of propagation of this salvation, that is
transmitted from the part to the whole as the sensorial perception of
an organ extends itself to the whole organism. It might appear at rst
as an automatism, in which the Divinity took possession through his
power of the human. From a philological perspective, this problem
is manifested in the difculty of the translation of &
in the
preceding passage. Some authors translate in the power. Potentially
was preferred here, which is the rst and most common signication
cited for this expression in the Lexicon of F. Mann.87 As we will see,
this translation is in better harmony with the Nyssian teachings, and
is analogous to the divine prescience in the rst creation of Chapter
16 of the DeHom.88
86
2 A# 6&
$
+ 31 * / #
&,
< 9! B
Q 0$ &
) / ; ; 3
i 1 /
B Q 4$$
, A Zi
9* &/
+

B -&Q C
, A# &
4 ; ".
&*
$) "## ## / 3 + 5 & 9 " a, 5 &
)

, H / 3K C 3 / F; 1
- $
; K *
"$
; 3 B
, G
F
@j + 3 /
; K
&
R9
) ; 9 3 + / ; A#
&
&. (Ibidem, 78, 317).
87
The proposed translation for this adverbial case is der Potenz nach, potentiell, for the
cited passage the signicance of vermge der Kraft is also accepted (cfr. F. Mann, Lexicon
Gregorianum: Wrterbuch zu den Schriften Gregors von Nyssa, II, Leiden 2000, p. 537).
88
See p. 6.
nature and action
23
Commenting exalted at the right hand of God of Acts 2.33, used by

Eunomius to conrm his own heresy, Gregory afrms:
Thus, who was exalted? He who is miserable or he who is above all?
And what is the miserable if not that which is human? And what else if
not God is above all? But God has no need to be exalted, being above
all. Therefore the Apostle said that which is human was exalted, and in
being exalted becoming Lord and Christ.89 It is for this that he becomes it
after the passion.90
The exaltation of the human, of human nature, happens only after the
passion. Only at this point does it become immortal in the immortal,
light in light, incorruptible in the incorruptible, invisible in the invisible,
Christ in Christ and Lord in Lord.91 Thus it can be said that:
It is clear that the blows are of the servant in whom the Lord is, while the
honours are on the other hand of the Lord, that the servant is enveloped
in ( g 5 &/#). In such a manner, by conjunction and connaturality (&
) * +
+k ) the effects of the one and the
other become common, since the Lord takes upon himself the bruises
of the servant, and the servant is gloried with the honour of the Lord.
In fact for this reason, one says that the cross is of the Lord of glory92
and that every tongue proclaims that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the Glory of
God the Father (Phil 2.11).93
It would seem that the conjunction (+

) goes from above to
below, that it proceeds from the divinity and refers to the hypostatic
union, while connaturality (+k ) goes from below to above, proceeding from humanity and representing the dynamic and universal
dimension of the human nature. It is properly a developing together.
The communicatio idiomatum is perfectly found in the crossing of these
89
Acts 2.36.
2 7iCl 5
; I 5 Gi
l &' ;
; - * ; C
l &'
"## ) ; !
5 Gi
l ##) * 5 ; 7i
&
Gi
m.
" ; C
5 # 7i1
#$
, 7iC &' &
) /
\
;
$
. &
) / &' ) ; $. (CEIII, GNO II, 123, 27).
90
91
92
Cfr. CEIII, GNO II, 123, 2224.

Cfr. 1 Cor 2.8.
93
< ' #$ / &# n 5 & < &'
/ & g 5
&/#% D &
) * +
+k
) $
) F + ,
/ & ( &#
( C# - F ; # / &#
&
&R @
% &
) / $) / & R 5 ;
#$
K $#1 R#$!
A

/ \
; - & R /
. (CEIII, GNO II, 131, 816).
24
chapter one
two movements: the ascending and the descending, that of the divine
power and that of the human nature.94
However it is the following passage of Antir which claries how the
terrible cross of Christ can be the cross of glory, and how at the same
time, the salvation of nature is not an automatic process. In the Antir
in fact, Gregory afrms against Apollinaris that in the incarnation the
properties of nature remain unaltered. The body of Christ heals the
body of man and the soul of Christ heals the soul of man:
If you divide in two a sticksince nothing hinders explaining with a
material example the mystery of the economy of the Incarnationand
the ends of the [two] pieces of the stick are joined on one side, necessarily the whole cut part of the stick, through the junction and binding
into one of the extremities, will be reunited to the whole, as it is reunited
to the other extremity. In this way, in him [Christ] the union of soul and
body accomplished in the resurrection guides by conjunction ( ) ;
9') the whole human nature, divided by death into soul and body,
to the natural union (; +k ) by the hope of the resurrection,
uniting the combination of that which was divided. And this is what
Paul says: Christ is risen from the dead, rst fruit of those who are dead,95 and as
all of us died in Adam, so all will receive life in Christ.96 In fact, following the
example of the stick, our nature was split by sin from the limit enacted
by Adam, since by death the soul was separated from the body, but the
humanity of Christ (/ ) ; \
; C) was united into
one nature alone (+). Therefore we die together with him who
died for us, and with this I do not refer to the necessary and common
death belonging to our nature. For this happens even if we wish it not.
But, since one must die with him who died by his own will, it is good
for us ( 7!) to think of that death that comes through free choice (

). In fact it is impossible to imitate that which is voluntary by
that which is necessarily imposed. Since then, the death that is imposed
on each of us by our nature comes to pass, and that necessarily (),
whether we wish or do not, one cannot hold as voluntary that which is
necessary; therefore in another mode we die together with him who died
94
On the Nyssian conception of the communicatio idiomatum, see J.R. Bouchet, Le
vocabulaire de lunion et du rapport des natures chez S. Grgoire de Nysse, RThom 68 (1968)
533582; L.F. Mateo-Seco, Notas sobre el lenguaje cristolgico de Gregorio de Nisa, ScrTh
35 (2003) 89112 ; Idem, Cristologia e Linguaggio in Gregorio di Nissa, in C. Moreschini
G. Menestrina (Eds.), Lingua e teologia nel cristianesimo greco, Trento 1112 dicembre 1997,
Brescia 1999, pp. 227249; B.E. Daley, Divine Transcendence And Human Transformation:
Gregory of Nyssas Anti-Apollinarian Christology, MoTh 18 (2002) 497506 and G. Maspero,
La cristologa de Gregorio de Nisa desde la perspectiva del II Concilio de Costantinopla, ScrTh 36
(2004) 124.
95
1 Cor 15.20.
96
1 Cor 15.22.
nature and action
25
voluntarily, that is being buried in the mystical waters through baptism. It

is said in fact, that through baptism we were buried together with him in death,97
so that from the imitation of death can also follow the imitation of the
resurrection.98
Man was divided by the sin in Adam, Christ has come to reconstitute
that which was divided. Reconstituting the whole trajectory of human
life, of human nature, in his own personal history, he reunited that
which was separated. When this human movement has reached its apex,
when all is accomplishedthe #
of Jn 19.28salvation
can extend to all of human nature. Thus the divine action can extend
to every man. But this potential possibility, acquired for us once for all
by Christ, is offered to us in the actuality of our own life only through
baptism. In fact, in baptism we can participate in the resurrection,
because the movement of Christ is completed and human nature has
already been reunited through the death and resurrection of the one
who voluntarily died for us.
Voluntary is an essential category together with the historicity of
human nature: instead of a naturalistic automatism, Gregory proposes
personal imitation,
. The possibility of salvation is given to the
97
Rm 6.4.
H (#
$) &'
1 ; 4
) *

- &R
) [ ] - &
9 # &
9

) ; S
) " 1 / # FC
, A# R $ ; /
# ; ; A# 4
&
) B F
#
+$R ; ; J @ , G 3 Q i9 ; ;
1 $ &
) J
K ) ; 9' *
+
&
) / i9 C

; +k "$
#&
, * &* 1 &

= % /
; )
/ # #$ A
\
; $4$
1, 9* 1
,
] B P&) 4, G B \
B @
.
) $) ; / # 7 &
$ ; ' / ) ; P&) 3 +
31
&
) = 9, B Q i9 ; / C &

, ; &'
/ ) ; \
; #
3 +
F * #
, ? &

; F *
/ ) ; \
; C +. &
) /
4 B 7' 31
, / #$ ; $ !

; + 31 % / $) * # $4
%
##8
&* B F
4
9* # , 4
;

7!

% $
&
) / $ 3 ;
; F

.
&* 5 +
FQ ?
$
# 4, E &
; $
B FQ
#$
, &
) / J B F
4, B

B G&
&
) /
% O+ $) B, +, &
)
/ - ; , h
4
/ #4? 3

. (Antir, GNO III/1, 226, 6227, 9).
98
26
chapter one
universal human nature, but the actuality of salvation of the concrete

man consists in the imitation of the personal history of Christ, in sacramental union with the mysteries of his life,99 in such a way that:
Bethlehem, Golgotha, the Mount of Olives and the Resurrection are
truly in the heart of he who possesses God.100
This is all realized through the historical dimension of +

, which is
not opposed to, but rather refers to, the personal dimension.
e. Conclusion
Thus the Gregorian concept of +
goes well beyond any philosophical elaboration, reuniting in itself the ontological profundity of
in its intensive dimension, universal openness in its extensive dimension,
and, intimately tied into this, a properly historical dimension. These
together allow for a profound, properly theological, harmonization with
the notion of 7
.
Nature is therefore a key concept throughout Nyssian theology, at the
Trinitarian, Christological and anthropological levels: it has a harmonizing role. In this sense the afrmation of G.L. Prestige appears correct,
that it is an empirical rather than a philosophical term,101 even if in
the intention of this author the afrmation attempts to minimize the
importance of the term nature in favor of that of . Instead it
appears that we are dealing with a properly theological term, which at
the same time allows many of the tensions which recur in the history
of thought on man and on God to be resolved.
As for the chronological order, it is clear it goes beyond the philosophical opposition between Plato and Aristotle. Further, the supposed
difference between Eastern and Western theology is resolved here
in a category that avoids dialectical opposition between and
99
It is noteworthy, for example, that Gregory does not interpret the three immersions of the Baptismal rite in only the Trinitarian sense, as was habitual and as could
be expected due to the great afnity of the Nyssian with Trinitarian themes. He adds
a Christological exegesis, which ties the three immersions to the three days that Christ
spent in the tomb. The goal is none other than to underscore the parallelism between
the life of Christ and that of the Christian (cfr. G. Celada, La catequesis sacramental y
bautismal de Gregorio de Nisa, CTom 101 (1974) 8084). See also in general, regarding this
sacramental parallelism Idem, Unidad de los sacramentos de la iniciacin cristiana, Nicolaus
4 (1976) 139174.
100
#1 &: / ; ; 69 3 o#' 5 p#$K 5 q#
M
3 P
. (Ep 3, GNO VIII/2, 20, 89).
101
G.L. Prestige, God . . ., p. 234.
nature and action
27
7
. The accusation of Harnack and Tixeront102 that the Greek
patristic, and Gregory in particular, gives pride of place to the incarnation in the salvation of man, placing the resurrection in a secondary
plane precisely due to the role of the notion of +
, shows itself to
be simply an unfounded afrmation, fruit of philosophical presuppositions above all. Thus, in the Nyssian +
, thought for man from the
Trinity, true end and point of return for man himself, the one and the
multiple meet, as do time and eternity. In this way +
has also a
dynamic aspect that is manifested through its close relationship to the
divine activity or energeia.
II. The Energies

a. The Ad Ablabium
The next step in logical development of the treatise moves the attention
from the human name to the divine name. After clarifying that man is
the name of the human nature, Gregory affronts the theme of the name
of God afrming with vigour the ineffability of the essence:
It thus appears to the majority of men that the word indicating the
Divinity is based in nature. And as the heaven and the sun or another of
the elements of the cosmos are designated by those particular words that
indicate the subjects, thus, also in reference to the supreme and divine
nature, they say that the word indicating the Divinity was ttingly adapted
to that which is manifested, as a sort of proper name. But we, following
the teachings of the Scripture, have learned that the divine nature cannot be designated with any name, and is ineffable (
"+ ). And we say that any name, either formulated by human usage
or transmitted by the Scriptures, is useful to interpret (F
) that
which is thought of the divine nature, but does not include (
9
)
the signication of the nature itself.103
102
Cfr. A. Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte II, Tbingen, 1909, p. 166. See also
J. Tixeront, Histoire des dogmes dans lantiquit chrtienne II, Paris 1924.
r! ' 2 ! ##! -&

@ ) + 3 +*
!
H 5 ; I 5 s#
I "##
1 /
9 -&
+ !
&

! 1 7

!, G +
+ H

+1 +
B &#Q * +*
. 3! &' ! $ + 74
F

"+ * 4 % K , L )
R
L ) 1 $ +1 &&
, 1 * +

F
; .
#$, +
9
* . (AdAbl,
103
GNO III/1, 42, 1343, 2).
28
chapter one
The name of the Divinity does not then refer to the divine nature, as
happens with created elements. It is not a proper name, capable of
comprehending and expressing that which God is in himself, since this
is impossible. Nevertheless the names are not useless. On the contrary,
all names, whether of biblical origin or human provenance, serve to
explain and interpret that which is thought of God.
The names given to created realities are given by chance, with the
exclusive nality of being able to indicate them with an appellative
and thus not fall into confusion.104 The case of the divine names is
quite different:
Instead each of the names that serve as guide (5&$ ) to know God
has a proper signication enclosed in itself and among the names most
worthy of God would not be found any word deprived of some sense
( ); thus it is demonstrated that it is not the divine nature itself to
be indicated with the names, but with that which is afrmed something
of that which regards it is made known.105
No word is useless, each one gathers a reection of the mystery. But

every name presents a particular aspect of the divine nature, without
indicating absolutely that which the nature is by essence ( ).106
This is valid, for example, for the names of incorruptible, powerful and
vivifying:
Therefore, saying incorruptible, we say that which the nature does not
undergo, but we do not express what that is that does not undergo corruption. So, also if we say vivifying, while we indicate by means of the
appellative that which is done [that is the action], with the word we do
not make known the being that does. According to the same reasoning,
based upon the signication enclosed in the words most worthy of God,
we nd also that all the other names either prohibit from knowing that
which should not be [known] regarding the divine nature, or they teach
that which should be [known], but they do not contain an explanation
of the nature itself.107
104
A &' ; 5&$ 4C

0 , -& 69
J

# &

E 9 4
& G
+*
!
1 0, D &
* * * +

7
1 0
1
, ##
1 * &
) 1 #$
$@
. (Ibidem, 43, 915).
105
106
/ "+ - , g * 9

3 +
, L% &
; * +)
* 9, 4 . G E @
; L, g
! &
) $
;
/ B # $Q $ . ) "## ) ; ;
107
nature and action
29
The names are thus either negative or positive, but all are simply
descriptivethey state the mode of being, action or activity. But one
cannot express with words the divine nature itself. This idea is claried
in what immediately follows:
Therefore, considering the diverse activities ($ ) of the supreme
power, we adapt the appellatives from the activities known to us. And
we say that one of the activities of God is also the activity of watching
and observing and, so to speak, to see, by which He sees all from above
and regards all, seeing the thoughts and penetrating with the power of
his gaze to the invisible things. Therefore we think that the Divinity (*
) has received its name from vision ( ) and that He who
has the regard (; ) on us is called God ( ) both by custom
and by the teaching of the Scriptures.108
The names are derived from the activities, from the divine energies.
In particular the name Divinity (* ) derives from vision (
). Gregory follows an etymology that comes from Aristotle.109
This doctrine is common in the writings of the Nyssian, for example
it can be found in CE II,110 and in DeAn.111 In the DeDeit, he calls upon
Gn 3.5 to make the same afrmation: the serpent tempted Eve and
Adam, promising that once they had eaten the fruit their eyes would
be opened. This is equivalent to becoming like God.112 The etymology
recalls the representations, a little disturbing for children, of God as an
open eye inserted into a triangle.
The delicate theme of the energies is introduced, which has been
source of so much discussion between the theologians of East and
West, and one is close to the theological heart of the treatise. Gregory,
# $ $

!
+ ! 7, I ; *
& + $
C
$ I ; & &
& , &'
+ F
9 . (Ibidem, 43, 2244, 6).
108
q )
# 7
& $ /
+8 F 1 3! $ $
1 ) $ = @, &'
.
#$ / / * $
, *
* 5
* D "

L

4, 8 t ) +
!, ) 4
#
)
&
&
& , 7
#4+ *

; ; 31 ; 7 1
$ +1 &
& # $
. (Ibidem, 44, 744, 16).
109
Cfr. J. Danilou, Ltre et le temps chez Grgoire de Nysse, Leiden 1970, p. 2.
; $) ; #$ ; 6+ &

; 1
/
# . (CE II, GNO I, 268, 30269, 2); / K
;
0@
. (CE II, GNO I, 397, 1516).
110
111
112
Cfr. DeAn, PG 46, 89B.

Cfr. DeDeit, GNO X/2, 143.
30
chapter one
after having moved attention from the level of +

to the level of
$

, focuses on demonstrating that the activities are common to
the three Persons:
Consider whether this activity (* $
) is properly of only one
of the Persons afrmed by faith to be in the Holy Trinity, or if the power
extends to the three Persons. Since, if the interpretation of the Divinity is
true and the things that are observed are said visible and the being that
sees is called God, none of the Persons of the Trinity can be any more
excluded reasonably from such an appellative, due to the signication
included in the term.113
The argumentation is Biblical and includes three passages of Scripture,

in which seeing is predicated of God (Ps 83.10), of the Son (Mt 9.4),
and of the Holy Spirit (Acts 5.3).114
At this point Gregory shows his rhetorical capacity and presents to
himself an objection, and one that seems to cause the whole logical
construction elevated to this point to fall. The Nyssian, almost excusing
himself while providing the necessity to respond in anticipation to the
objections of his adversaries,115 calls into doubt the passage from the
+
to the $

just accomplished, when it is the nature that
would seem to better guarantee the unity of the Three:
But, since with that which has been said it was demonstrated that the
name Divinity indicates the activity ($
) and not the nature, the
argument turns in some manner towards the contrary of that which
was established, so that we are even more constrained to say three gods
of those whom we consider to exercise the same activity ($:). Thus,
they say that one speaks of three philosophers or three orators or of any
name deriving from a profession, when there are more than one who
participate in it.116
113
#$
* $
, F
1 =$:
&

C I &
) 1
1 &
4
3 &
. - $) #* 3
F ) 5C ) ; C ; #$
,
E
# $

1
&
C
$ &
) *
$
+ . (AdAbl, GNO III/1, 44, 1945, 3).
114
115
Cfr. ibidem, 45, 346, 2.

Cfr. ibidem, 46, 2347, 3.
116
&' &
) 1 - $

9 +

; ,
; 1 @ 5
# $, D &! ? K## #$
! ( ( $: %
H +
! #$
+
# + I U4 I L
J R
&
, A # V
< / / 9. (Ibidem, 46, 1623).
nature and action
31
It is a key passage since Gregory, who had already applied the concepts
of +
, and 7
to both man and to God, now applies
to both the term $
, to afrm that we know and denominate
only the activity of God.
b. The $

The importance of the argument obliges to extend it into this section,
while the unity of action of the divine Persons will be the object of
Part III of this chapter: in Gregorys work the discourse on the divine
action or energies ($

) starts always from the consideration of
the ineffability of essence or of the divine nature. In light of Part I of
the chapter, it is necessary to specify that the nature is incomprehensible
in its intensive dimension, which coincides with the essence:
The divine nature in itself, that is what it is by essence ( 8 ), is
above every capacity of intellectual comprehension, being inaccessible
and unapproachable by conjectural reasonings.117
This premise is important, since the Cappadocians are often referred

to as the rst to speak of apophatism.118 It is however necessary to note
that Gregory speaks exclusively of the ineffability of the divine essence
and does not negate the capacity to speak of God and of the three
Persons. As will be seen more amply in the next chapter, the Nyssian
afrmation excludes only the capacity to comprehend, that is to fully
embrace with the human mind and language, the inexhaustible ontological profundity of the essence itself.
The term +
has even, for Gregory, a sense that is principally
positive, derived from the verb + which covers the semantic
spectrum of word, thought, prophecy, judgment and decision. Naturally, the
term also appears in the meaning derived from +
, with the
sense of negation. But, the adjective + ()
and the adverb
+ ()
1 exist only in the form derived from + , and have
always the sense, paradoxical for the modern reader, corresponding to
clear, determined.119
117
v +
* 7* A
' , 7

#

,
# 2 ! 9
!

(DeBeat, GNO VII/2, 140, 1517).
118
Cfr. J. Garrigues, Thologie et Monarchie. Lentre dans le mystre du sein du Pre (Jn
1.18) comme ligne directrice de la thologie apophatique dans la tradition orientale, Ist. 15 (1970) 436.
119
Cfr. F. Mann, Lexicon . . ., I, pp. 509510.
32
chapter one
The terminological indication itself helps to discern the double

dimension of that which, according to modern terminology, can be
called the Nyssian apophatism: the possibility to comprehend the divine
essence is negated, all the while orienting to the personal dimension.
This double dimension will be the object of Chapter II of the present commentary. It corresponds to the two moments of Jn 1.18: the
beloved Disciple afrms that no one has ever seen God, but at the same
time says that The Only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made
him known.120
For Gregory every nature is unknowable in itself,121 but this is true in
an eminent manner for the divine nature, which is beyond the infrangible limit between created and uncreated:
Great and insurmountable is the intermediary space by which the uncreated nature is separated as if with a barrier from the created substance.
The second was limited, while the rst has no limits.122
For Gregory man is limited and lives in space and time: man is a diastematic being. For this reason he can only know that which is dynamic and
manifests itself in time. In this way through the activity of the Creator
and the beauty of creation, one can return to God, who remains nevertheless incomprehensible in his metaphysical profundity. Consequently,
and against the pretension of Eunomius, the only proper name of God
is he who is above every name according to the Pauline formulation, since
God transcends every intellectual movement (7
; K
&

).123 On the other hand, it is providence and activity
that take the place of the name.124 Thus one can say that:
It is clear that God is named according to the diverse appellatives in
relation to the multiform activities ($
1) so that we may understand
him, by the fact that he receives such a denomination.125
120
Together with 1, 3 and 14, 6, this is one of the most cited Johannine verses of the
Nyssian (cfr. H. Drobner, Bibelindex zu den Werken Gregors von Nyssa, Paderborn 1988).
121
Cfr. p. 113.
122
#( $) ; &
R, n ; *
* 3 "

+
&
9

. G
, 69
% (CE II, GNO I, 246,
1416).
123
Cfr. ibidem, 397, 2829.
124
Cfr. ibidem, 314, 1718.
125
&# $) A
; ;
# 1 $
1 ) &
+
0
!
; !, A E 4, G 0 @ . (Ibidem, 315,
2426).
nature and action
33
These appellatives are not purely arbitrary as Eunomius had maintained,

but correspond to an ontological order.126 The human intellect was created by God and one cannot despise it, as the Neo-Arian had done.
At this point is easier to evaluate the importance of the AdAbl for
the question of the possibility to know God. B. Krivocheine afrms,
referring to the distinction between nature and energies, that it is in
his letter to Ablabius that Gregory speaks of it clearly.127 The same
opinion is held by E.D. Moutsoulas.128 The problem is centered on the
interpretation of 1 * +
in GNO III/1,
42, 2243, 1, and on
1 * in 43, 1415 of the AdAbl
itself, in as much as the energies are traditionally identied with that
which surrounds the divine nature ( with the accusative).
A rst hermeneutic problem is to establish in which sense Gregory
distinguishes with the accusative from with the genitive.
The immediate contextual observation suggests that the question of
the distinction between essence and energies is a problem quoad nos:
it deals with how we name and understand the Divine. The very verb
used () in the phrase in question suggests this interpretive
stance. Nevertheless, it is necessary to carefully avoid projecting modern
occidental categories onto the Nyssians vigorous thought, assuming
in an improper manner a perspective that separates the gnoseological
and ontological planes.
The use of the preposition with the accusative and not the genitive
as usual to refer to a treated theme for an argument of a discussion is
an interesting indicator to understand the Nyssians thought. This use
of with the accusative appears specic in Gregory, and extends to
both the theological and spiritual writings.129 In CEIII Gregory explains
while commenting I am who I am of Ex 3.14:
Thus we think that it is necessary to believe that is truly divine only that
which is understood in being according to eternity and innity, and that all
which is considered in connection with it (K ; ; )
remains always the same without growing or diminishing.130
126
Cfr. J. Danilou, Platonisme et thologie mystique. Doctrine spirituelle de saint Grgoire de
Nysse, Paris 1944, p. 135.
127
Cest dans sa lettre Ablabios que Grgoire en parle clairement (B. Krivocheine, Simplicit . . ., p. 398).
128
Cfr. E.D. Moutsoulas, Essence et Energies de Dieu selon St. Grgoire de Nysse, StPatr
18 (1983) 518.
129
Cfr. B. Krivocheine, Simplicit . . ., p. 399.
130
/ / ! .

D #1

- &!, g ) ;
34
chapter one
There thus exists a direct connection of the eternity and innity of the
divine nature to all that is contemplated in connection with it. The translation wishes to express, suggested by the sense of the passage itself, that
it is not a reality on the purely cognitive level, but that the energies
or activities are contemplated in their intimate union with nature. It
is for this reason that they are characterized by the same immutability
of the divine nature and are not separable from the latter.131 The ad
extra manifestation of God renders eternity present in history, without
introducing any change into God himself. In the OrCat, the Nyssian
claries further:
For, it was necessary that neither the light remain invisible, nor the glory
without testimony, nor that his goodness be not enjoyed, nor that all the
rest that is considered in connection with the divine nature ( *
K
+
) remain inactive ($)), in absence of someone
who could participate in it and enjoy it.132
The text is important since it shows that light and glory are among the
things that are enumerated in connection with the divine nature, as B.
Krivocheine observed.133 In Chapter III we will see that light and glory
are concepts that Gregory utilizes as connections between immanence
and economy. Light and glory characterize both the intimacy between
the divine persons, whose vital dynamic is presented as an eternal,
reciprocal self gift of glory in the splendour of the divine light (see
p. 176), and as a manifestation of God in time. For Gregory, the whole
of economy is a reection of the immanent light, and the relationship
between #$ and - is proposed as a natural key to the
question of the $

.
It is homily VI of the DeBeat that is the principle text to approach
the conceptualization of the Nyssian. He had already afrmed in homily I, with some irony, that the difference between human and divine
nature cannot be lled. Mud is the true origin of man, who has thus
k&

B .
#
, K ; ;
D 69
, w $
w $
. (CEIII, GNO II, 186, 1215).
131
Differently than Porphyry, for Gregory the $

do not constitute indepen-
dent or separated entities (Cfr. E. Mhlenberg, Die philosophische Bildung Gregors von Nyssa
in den Bchern Contra Eunomium, in M. Harl (ed.), criture et culture philosophique dans la pense
de Grgoire de Nysse, Leiden 1971, p. 241).
132
6&
$) 4 ; +1 4 * & R 4 #
/ .
* $ 4 ) "## A * K
+

$) !
* / 9 # . (OrCat, GNO III/4, 17, 47).
133
nature and action
35
the same nature as bricks (; $$' ; * # 69

). He is
a wax puppet, who will in small time nish in cinders, nevertheless he
lls himself with airs, pufng himself up as if he were a ball of pride
and arrogance: the mysteries of human nature are properly contemplated in the cemetery.134 Then, in homily II, the Nyssian explains the
beatitudes in a descending order, from heaven to earth. Man cannot
in any way ascend by himself to the divine,135 but it is thanks only
to Revelation that those mysteries that transcend human experience
and knowledge are opened to him.136 In this way, Gregory continues
in homily V, Sacred Scripture often cites the part for the whole, and
this happens exactly when it interprets the divine nature with certain
names.137 The end is to make us participants of the divine beatitude,
which is nothing other than communion with the Divinity itself, to
which the Lord raises us.138
The Nyssian opens homily VI, in which he comments Blessed are the
pure in heart, for they will see God of Mt 5.8, with a poetic image: when
his mind looks to the sublime knowledge of God it is as if from the
summit of a high vista he looked upon the innite vastness of the open
sea. As from a peak over the sea one perceives, from a great altitude,
the depths of the sea, thus the verses of the Gospel are vertiginous to
those who seek out their meaning.139
Gregory cites Tm 6.16 to set forth that no man can see God, to then
explain that to see God is eternal life140 and that in the use of the
134
Cfr. DeBeat, GNO II/2, 8586, passim.
D * &! 3
* R
1
1 # , 1
1 ) / $ ! $$#
3! ) / Y/ .
135
(Ibidem, 90, 1619).
136
[ &' $
& ; -&
0
! ) $ ) ! C

#+
x 7' L $1
. (Ibidem, 91, 1922).
137
O4 &' ##
3 $ +* &
) / 4
#
;
A#, D A * +
&
0
1 F?. (Ibidem, 118, 47).
138
v 2 1
1 &' "## - *

, ;
t 3K $
&
) 1 #$ 5 y
. (Ibidem, 124, 1315).
139
z ! -; ( 6
7i# - 9

# $, /
3 &

, 7i# / y +, T

+ , - ; &
R 1 # . y
$) ##! 1 # 6
-&! 3, ) ; #

; + ; &
R, { ) ; " "

# ; ; ;
, A 2 ! -; ; ;

K, ##/ / Gi * B
&
# , G
-#
$$
/ i9*, $#? ? / y + $
(Ibidem, 136, 26137, 11).

140
P##) * -C
@* ; -&!
; Y . (Ibidem, 137, 2324).
36
chapter one
Sacred Scripture to see signies to have.141 The profound ontological

dimension of the question is placed in relief from the beginning: to
know signies to participate.
As already seen, (p. 31) the Nyssian asks himself why the Bible
speaks to us of this vision when the divine nature in itself ( )
surpasses every intellectual comprehension.142 Gregory cites Rm 11.33,
where the ways of God are said to be incomprehensible, since that
path that guides to the knowledge ($1
) of the divine essence is inaccessible to reasonings.143 And yet He who is superior to every nature
is accessible by other paths:
For, it is possible to see by conjecture (9
1) he who has made
all things by wisdom, even through the wisdom (+:) that manifests
itself in the universe. As with human works, in a certain manner one
perceives with the mind the author of the work before oneself, since he
has left his imprint of [his] art in his work. And one does not perceive
the nature of the artist, but only the artistic ability that the artist left in
the work. Thus also turning our regard to the order of creation, we form
an idea, not of the essence, but of the wisdom of he who has made all
with wisdom (/ ) +1
).144
We are before kataphasis, that is of the possibility to know God through

his works. Wisdom is a central theme here, something that will later be
taken up by the Russian Sophiologists.145
141
`; $) -&! ;

B 9! p + : (Ibidem, 138,
1214).
142
v +
* 7* A
' , 7

#

,
# 2 ! 9
!
7
(Ibidem, 140, 1518).
143
; .
#$
! * 5&; t ; * $1

"$
(Ibidem, 140, 2223).
144
|
$) &
) +
B + , ; +:

9
1 -&!, 1 &
$
5K

) &
: 5 &
$; /
, *
9 B 6$Q . _K
&' 9 3 +
/ 9 ##)
3 9
*
4 t 5 9 . [G ; ;

# , 6
##) + / )
+1
. (Ibidem, 141, 210).
145
H. von Balthasar explicitly collates the Nyssian to Dostoievskij, Soloviev and
Berdiaev (Cfr. H. von Balthasar, Prsence et pense, Paris 1947, p. 90). See also the articles
of M. van Parys, Exgse et thologie trinitaire. Prov.8, 22 chez les Pres Cappadociens, Irn.
43 (1970) 362379 and of E. von Ivnka, Zur Philosophie Wl. Solowiews. Russentum und
Vtertheologie, in De oriente: Documenta, studia et libri. (Orientalia christiana 32), Roma 1933,
159167. Parallel to the concept of Gregorys - and divino-humanity would
be, in particular, the Sophia of V. Soloviev, as presented, for example, in V. Soloviev, La
Russie et lglise universelle, Paris 1889. For Russian sophiology in general, see A. Asnaghi,
nature and action
37
All that has been said of visible creation is valid also for our lives, which
are not the fruit of necessity, but of the will for good, through which
we can contemplate God in his goodness. Gregory says in synthesis:
In this way, we call a means to know God also all that elevates thought to
the most powerful and highest Being, since each of the sublime concepts
places God before our eyes. In fact, power and puritythe immutable
being is pure of all that is contrary to itand every similar attribute
can impress in our soul the image (+ ) of a certain divine and
sublime concept. Therefore, as for that which has been said, it can be
seen how also the Lord speaks the truth when he proclaims that God will
be seen by those who are pure of heart. And Paul does not lie when he
afrms in his teachings, that none has ever seen God, nor can see him.
In fact, he who is invisible in his nature ( +
) becomes
visible in the activities ($
), since he is contemplated in certain
properties in connection with himself (6

! ; -&
C
C).146
The distinction between the divine nature and the divine activities or
energies is clearly afrmed here.147 Further, this text gives an explicit
connection between the $
and with the accusative. It is,
Storia ed escatologia del pensiero russo, Genova 1973 and Idem, Luccello di fuoco. Storia della
losoa russa, Sotto il Monte (BG) 2003.
G ) "## A ; ; ! 7i# $
*
6
, /
)
/ @, F 1 7i#1
; Y; 3! - i
"$. v $) &
3 , ; D
69
, ;
$' / )
/
; 7i#
! ! i9 ! * + . [ / &
&
) 1 - 1 5
y
#
, 0+4
; Y; ! ! & $$
#
5 /# i&
, 4 F

) ; Y; 4 -&! &
&
) 1
- # $ +. _ $) +
5 ; ! $
$
,
6

! ; -&
C
C. (DeBeat, GNO VII/2, 141, 1527).
146
147
Thomas also distinguishes a rst act, that is the form, from a second act, that
is operation: Actus autem est duplex, primus, et secundus. Actus quidem primus est
forma et integritas rei, actus autem secundus est operatio (Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologica, I, q. 48, a. 5, c.). Also: Operatio est actus secundus; forma autem per quam
aliquid habet speciem, est actus primus (Idem, Summa Contra Gentiles II, 59, 16). In God,
operation is identied with essence, but this is secundum rem (Sed in Deo, secundum rem,
non est nisi una operatio, quae est sua essentia, Idem, Summa Theologica, I q. 30, a. 2,
r. 3). For in God action coincides with power, which in turn coincides with the essence
(Sed actio Dei non est aliud ab eius potentia, sed utrumque est essentia divina, quia nec
esse eius est aliud ab eius essentia, ibidem, q. 25, a. 1, r. 2). However, the divine activity
and action can be seen also from outside, that is from the perspective of the extra-Trinitarian effect, in which case the power, as principle of the effect and not as principle of
the action, is no longer identied with the essence itself (Potentia in rebus creatis non
solum est principium actionis, sed etiam effectus. Sic igitur in Deo salvatur ratio potentiae quantum ad hoc, quod est principium effectus, non autem quantum ad hoc, quod
est principium actionis, quae est divina essentia, ibidem, q. 25, a. 1, r. 3).
38
chapter one
therefore, necessary to discuss the chosen translation of $

with
activity and its connection with the use of .
c. Activity
From the last cited text it appears clear that one cannot negate the
difference between with the accusative and with the genitive, a
distinction that will be taken up by Palamas later.148 The rst use manifests the intrinsic connection between the ontological and gnoseological
planes, while the second is extrinsic and exclusively cognitive. In one
case the connection between the interior and the exterior of the object
is expressed, in the other we only approach from outside the object itself.
Quite opportunely A. de Halleux underlines that: followed by the
accusative, the preposition peri signies usually about (autour de) and
not regarding (au sujet de).149
It is necessary however to note, that the signication of regarding,
in the case of with the accusative150 is not excluded from the dictionary. This is always with the sense of an intrinsic tie: the spatial sense
that is prevalent is the fundamental one of frontier and connection, and
not that of exclusion from a closed place. Furthermore, the expression
can signify in the heart or in the soul, as is found in the i9)
used by Pindar.151 For this reason one of the principle meanings is in
connection with. This means that one is outside since previously has
been inside, with reference with both places and persons. For example,
the soldiers who ght around their city: they ght around it since it
is their city. In this vein, the expression <
also signies the
whole of the intimate consorts or family of someone.152
In the same way, this preposition with the accusative signies that
which manifests itself of a certain being, in as much as belonging to
its essence or nature. In the Phaedrus,153 the formula ) ; 1
148
Cfr. B. Krivocheine, Simplicit . . ., p. 403 and E.D. Moutsoulas, Essence . . ., pp.
521522. For the inuence of Gregory of Nyssa in general, and on Gregory Palamas in
particular, see A. Meredith, Gregory of Nyssa, London 1999, pp. 138139.
149
Suivie de laccusatif, la prposition peri signie normalement autour de, et non
au sujet de. (A. de Halleux, Palamisme et Tradition, Irn. 48 (1975) 484).
150
A. Bailly, Dictionnaire Grec-Franais, Paris 1950, p. 1519.
151
Cfr. Pindaro, Pythia, Ode 4, 122; H. Maehler, Pindari carmina cum fragmentis,
Leipzig 1989, p. 83.
152
Cfr. B.P. Grenfell, An Alexandrian erotic fragment and other Greek papyri chiey Ptolemaic,
Oxford 1896, 21, 16.
153
Cfr. Plato, Phaedrus, 246d (Burnet).
nature and action
39
appears. It returns numerous times in Platos work: he is describing how

a god is, and he paints it as a being with a soul and body united forever.
Thus he passes to describe the function of the wings that the soul has
lost and serve to lift oneself up. This passage Gregory certainly knew.
In this context one speaks of that which belongs to the body, and
Plato uses the same expression to refer to the actions and activities of
the body in distinction of those of the soul () * i9* )
; 1 ).154 The Platonic use of the expression ) with the
accusative approaches then the idea of attributes and activity.155
It is highly probable that this is the source of the Gregorian meaning.
For this reason, following Danilou, it would seem that the best choice
for translating $
is activity rather than energy.156
In fact the Nyssian uses with the accusative also for man, speaking of something other than what is considered in regard to the body
and the soul ( 1 i9*):157 this is a possible (almost
literal) citation of the passage of Platos Charmides to which reference
has been made. And $
is also applied to man when Gregory
says: Thought is an activity of our mind.158 Otherwise, in CE II, Gregory
explicitly compares divine simplicity to the simplicity of the human
soul, which receives different names according to its different faculties
and activities, but does not cease for this to be simple and unique.159
Thus, Gregory, confuting the Eunomian denition of Christ as
image and seal of the activity of the All-powerful (-M + $ /
$ ), writes:
[ / , a &8 $C, V \ &, 3! ) * i9* )
; 1 , ) / 9 0R ## +
I ) &
39
; (Plato, Charmides, 160b, 35). See also the ) ( C
$ of Leges, 677e.
155
6
&' 01 "
C ' 1 ) * i9* $ ) !

,
+ 7 9 , & &' ) ; 1 #) $ ,
) * 94 #$ % (Plato, Leges, 697b, 26).
154
156
E. Perrella, in the introduction to his edition of the works of Gregory Palamas,
strongly afrms the necessity to nd a true and proper translation for $
, in as
much as the simple transliteration of the term is equivocal, since the Greek concept is
cleary different from the signicance that the term energy has assumed today (cfr. E. Perrella, Gregorio Palamas. Atto e luce divina: scritti losoci e teologici, Milan 2003, pp. xxvixxi).
For a discussion on the translation of the term in the context of the work of Maximus
the Confessor, see Ph.G. Renczes, Agir de Dieu et libert de lhomme, Paris 2003, pp. 3544.
He underlines properly that activity is the most general and common translation (p. 42).
157

"## 1 i9* !
(CEI, GNO I, 80, 9).
158
3 &'
3 &
$
(CE II, GNO I, 323, 2930).
159
Cfr. CE II, GNO I, 373, 28.
40
chapter one
For every activity is observed in he who labours pursuing that which he
seeks, but, once attained that which is sought, it does not subsist in itself:
as with the activity of the runner, which is a movement with the feet,
once the activity is ended, there is no activity in itself.160
The fundamental idea is that activity does not have proper subsistence:
it depends totally upon the nature of which it is an expression. If it is a
human nature, then it will have the temporal characteristics of humanity, while if divine, it will carry the signs of divine eternity. Properly,
$
is a movement of nature (+
).
However, what has been said will be clearer through the use of examples.
We say that one works metal or wood, or carries out another of such
activities. Therefore, language presents at once both the art and he who
exercises the art, so that if one separates one thing, the other cannot subsist. If then, the two realities are thought one together with the other, that
is activity itself and he who acts through it, how is it that in this case one
says that on the rst substance ( : C?) follows activity that
produces the second substance, as if mediating in itself between the one
and the other, without being confused with the rst according to nature,
nor being tied to the second? For [the activity] is separated from the rst
by the fact of not being a nature, but a movement of nature (+

), and is not united to that which results because it does not have
as proper result a simple activity, but an active substance.161
The comparison with human nature returns, as it does often in this

context.162 Nevertheless the most interesting addition is the denition
of $
as +
: recourse to this pairing of terms is
particularly signicative, because it clearly shows that activity does not
have its own proper consistency. It is not an essence, nor a hypostasis.
160
K $) $
' B /
; & @ !
,
&' / & @ 8 F * 9 7+% T $
/ &
3 &
) 1 &1

, &'
4
6
+8 F 3
$
. (RCE, GNO II, 379, 2630).
161
O + &' &
) 1 7&
$ ; #$ 6
. 9 #

) #$
I
I "##
$! 1
. /
+ 4 $
;
* 9 ) ; 5 # $ , H - 9
;
J, * E 7
; #
. - 2 ) & 8 ##4# !
, 4
3 $
5 8 *
, 1 / J
#$
:
C? 3 * & $ @ $
,
&
8 F
+
w C? ) * +
w ; * &
l ' $) 9C

B * +
.
, ##) +
, &'
8 F *
, A
i
#* $
, ##8 $; &
8 F
74 . (CE I, GNO I, 88, 417).
162
A little further, in CE I, Gregory responds to Eunomius, having recourse to the
example of the shoemakers instruments (Cfr. CE I, GNO I, 98, 1927).
nature and action
41
Instead it is a movement of nature, a movement that corresponds

to nature, to the essence from which it ows. For this reason $

is unique as nature is,163 and for this reason there are in Christ two
energies and two wills, as the natures are two.
The same denition is found in John Damascene, who afrms:
activity ($
) is an efcient movement of nature.164 The origin
of the expression is particularly interesting: Aristotle, in the De generatione
animalium, afrms that every being that is product of nature or fruit of
an art, originates from something that is in act. When the principle
ceases to act, the being ceases to be. Thus the face and the esh are
not properly such when the soul has abandoned them. This is not in
reference to secondary qualities, that can have secondary causes, but
of being itself, of that which renders esh to be esh. This has origin
only in that which causes a being to pass from potentiality to actuality.
It follows for items made by the art of man: cold and heat can render
steel more or less hard, but that which makes a sword a sword is the
movement of the instruments of the artisan that gives it form:165
Art is in fact the principle and form of that which comes to be, but in
another; since the movement of nature ( +
) in it comes
from another that has the form in act ($:).166
In this light, if Gregorys direct or indirect source is truly this, the

context of the denition would be referring to the connection between
being and action, between ontology and knowledge.167 The Aristotelian
163
The connection between nature and energy-activity is the &
. B. Pottier
afrms that Gregory always uses $
in relation to the sphere of creation, while
power is in relation to the uncreated sphere (Cfr. B. Pottier, Dieu et le Christ selon Grgoire
de Nysse, Turnhout 1994, p. 116).
164
q$

+
&
4% ( John Damascene, Expositio dei, 37,
29; B. Kotter, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos I, Berlin 1969, p. 94). The same is
repeated in 59, 8 (p. 144).
165
Cfr. Aristotle, De generatione animalium, 734b, 19735a, 2; p. 55 (Drossaart Lulofs).
166
3 $) 9 9* .& / $
$, ##8 FQ% 3 &' +

B +8 F 2 + 9 ; .& $:. (Ibidem, 735a,
24; pp. 5556).

167
The results of the present analysis are in perfect agreement with those obtained by
M.R. Barnes, one of the participating authors of the project of S. Coakley. He placed
in light the ontologization of &
, as a fundamental passage of Nyssian theology:
Eunomius, in fact, used as a supporting argument for his subordinating arguments the
fact that the Scripture calls Christ the &
/ / (1 Cor 1.24). Gregory responds
explicitating the ontological connection between +
, &
and $
(cfr. M.R.
Barnes, The Power of God, Washington D.C. 2001, p. 296). M.R. Barnes claries that it is
not just any sort of activity ($
) here, since there are different beings with similar
42
chapter one
origin is suggested by other occurrences, such as that in the commentaries to the Metaphysics of Aristotle by Alexander168 and Syrianus.169
Another sure source of Gregory is the area of natural sciences and
medicine.170
There are interesting consequences for the understanding of economy and immanence, since Eunomiuss idea was that the Son was a
product of the $
of the Father. In this way, according to the
Neo-Arian, the Trinity would be broken and all immanence would be
attributed to the Father in his essence. The Son and the Spirit would
be second essences, produced from the rst essence. One would reach
an economization of the Trinity through this, by an excess of immanent
tension. Eunomius the Neoplatonic could not afrm a multiplicity of
Hypostases in the Divinity.
Gregory replies afrming the principle that activity ($
) follows
nature, thus if the Sacred Scripture witnesses that the Son and the
Spirit perform actions proper to God, they must be of divine nature.
It is precisely activity that distinguishes and unites the economic and
immanent spheres: this relationship respects the ontological profundity
without prejudicing the possibility of participation.
The translation of $
as activity has thus the benet of expressing the connection between #$ and - , manifesting also the
role of the divine Persons in this passage. In the InCant, Gregory develops
extensively the theme of divine unknowability. In homily XI he afrms:
When [the soul] elevates itself from the realities of here below to the
knowledge of those things above, even if it understands the marvels of his
[of God] activities, for now it cannot proceed beyond in the busy curiosity
(&
) # $), but admire and adore Him of Whom one
knows the existence only through that which He accomplishes ( &
8
W $! $
).171
activities; for example, a bicycle and a horse can both serve to transport. It is rather
those activities that characterize a nature, that is, the essence of the nature itself, as is
the case of creating for God (ibidem, pp. 301302).
168
Alexander of Aphrodisias, In Aristotelis metaphysica commentaria; M. Hayduck,
Alexandri Aphrodisiensis in Aristotelis metaphysica commentaria [Commentaria in Aristotelem
Graeca I], Berlin 1891, p. 706, 3536.
169
Syrianus, In Aristotelis metaphysica commentaria; W. Kroll, Syriani in metaphysica commentaria [Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca VI/1], Berlin 1902, p. 37, 3435.
170
The denition appears at least three times in the De diebus decretoriis libri III of Galenus (C.G. Khn, Claudii Galeni opera omnia IX, p. 822, 18; p. 826, 5 and p. 844, 8). It is
found also in Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum commentaria; E. Diehl, Procli Diadochi in Platonis
Timaeum commentaria III, Amsterdam 1965, p. 352, 13.
171

&) 1 ; * 1 7
$1
F * ?,
nature and action
43
The divine activity is symbolized, in the Canticle of Canticles,172 by

the hand of the spouse:
For now the limit of the knowledge of Him who is ineffable is, for the
soul, the activity ($
) that manifests itself in existing things, which
we mean to be called hand in a symbolic manner.173
The soul must content itself with the energeia, since human poverty is
not capable of receiving into itself the unlimited divine nature.174
Thus the hand symbolizes also the power of miracles, which manifested the divinity of Christ.175 B. Krivocheine notes, in commenting
this passage, that this is a particular use of the term $
within
the Gregorys corpus: one passes from an idea of the creative action
of God, which opens a path of analogical knowledge through works,
to a divine condescendence which reveals God without rendering the
essence accessible.176 Perhaps the proposed translation of $

activityrenders well both of the Nyssian uses, which would appear a
further conrmation of the fact that Gregory does not use this term
technically, but refers to it simply to speak of divine activity and to the
connection between immanence and economy.177 Thus the knowledge
through $
is for Gregory similar to the knowledge of a child
who, perceiving the voice or the steps of his father, recognizes him and
says it is father, or of the beloved who recognizes the lover.
The doubt of whether the subject of activity is the nature itself
could arise, as if this would mean we were saved and needed to enter
into direct relationship with the divine essence, and not with the divine
Persons. The Nyssian does not leave doubts on this level, knowing how
to reconcile the unity of will and of Trinitarian activity, deriving from
the unique divine nature, and the unique movement
of the
Trinitarian action, which always parts from the Father, as from a source,
) $ / # /

#! &
)
# $ &
, ##) @

; A
6
&
8
W $! $
. (InCant XI, GNO VI, 334, 15335, 1).
172
Cfr. Ct 5, 4.
&' / A i9 / + $CC
3 +
!
2
$
, t 9! #$

1 4 . (InCant XI, 336, 1012).
173
174
Cfr. ibidem, 336, 14337, 2.

Cfr. ibidem, 338, 1721.
176
177
In this sense there are no difculties in accepting the identication of energies and
operative attributes, maintained by E. Moutsoulas (cfr. E.D. Moutsoulas, Essence et Energies . . ., p. 521), who is in agreement here with J. Danilou, against J.Ph. Houdret (Cfr.
J-Ph. Houdret, Palamas et les Cappadociens, Ist. 19 (1974) 266267).
175
44
chapter one
passes through the Son and terminates in the Holy Spirit: as we will
see in Section III of this chapter, the preferred Trinitarian formula of
Gregory is &
c </
which appears repeatedly
in the AdAbl, and in numerous other writings, such as the AdMac.178
In fact, for Gregory the discourse on $
is always tied to ontological and personal participation, on which is founded the cognitive
dimension.179 In the DeBeat, after having afrmed that God can be
known in his activities alone, the Nyssian changes the scope of the
argument, underscoring that the problem is not solely gnoseological;
one must not only know proper denitions, but live the divine life:
However the sense of beatitude does not regard only that from an activity one can remount by analogy ( #$
) to such a Maker. In
fact even the wise of this world could arrive through the harmony of
the universe, to the perception of the superior wisdom and power. But
in another manner it appears to me that the greatness of beatitude suggests council to those that can accept it. What I have in mind will be
claried through examples. Health of the body is a good for human life,
but to be happy it is not enough to know the denition of health, but
to live in health.180
In fact the Lord says that to be blessed does not consist in knowing
something of God, but in having God in oneself.181 This is possible
since God is the Creator of man, and creating him, has connaturalized in man such a possibility: he has impressed as images the goods of
the divine nature, impressing them in man as gures in wax. Sin later
obscured these images. The beatitudes then, call man to wash himself
of all the encrusted dirtiness, so that the beauty of the image can be
fully resplendent. Thus it is possible to contemplate in ones own soul,
178
Cfr. AdMac, GNO III/1, 100, 911. See also Ep 24, GNO VIII/2, 77, 46.
V. Lossky skillfully underlined the role of Gregory in the surpassment of the residues of Origenistic intellectualism (cfr. V. Lossky, Vision de Dieu, Neuchtel 1962, pp.
7074, together with the article V. Lossky, Le Problme de la Vision face face et la Tradition
patristique de Byzance, StPatr 2/2 (1957) 512537).
179
180
P## ; / #
/
/ 3 &

, ; 6
$
; $/ &

/ #$
$
$) E L ! /
-1 +! &
) / 3 7
+
&
. P## J
&! 3 /
/ $ #+k !
&
&R

&! ; , * #* 7+$!
; &
) &
7&
$ +
4
. P$
) ; C

3 7$
/ C ##)
; -&
7$
;
# $ ##) ; 7$
: @. (DeBeat, GNO VII/2, 141, 28142, 10).
181
; $1
Y/
5 y
. +
##) ; F B 9!
; Y . (Ibidem, 142, 1315).
nature and action
45
in grace, the image of the living God.182 This is the Trinitarian life in
the soul of the Christian, the life of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit that the Christian knows in the Biblical sense in his heart, there
where knowledge becomes love.183
d. Palamism
After having justied the translation of $
as activity and having
underlined the fundamental role of mediation between immanence
and economy, it is worthwhile reecting on Palamism, not to speak of
the polemical aspects of the question and their merit,184 but simply to
show the value of the themes present in the AdAbl. It seems that the
authority for the distinction of essence and $
can be traced
to the Nyssian, in as much as activity conceived as a movement of nature
constitutes a bridge between #$ and - , which founds
the possibility of participation in the divine life in history and temporality of man, while avoiding the reduction of the immutability and
transcendence of God.
Gregory Palamas185 (12961359) became a monk in 1316, and arrived
at Mount Athos in 1317. He immersed himself in the spirituality that
ourished around the Hesychastic method. This consisted in a technique
of prayer which, based upon the conviction of the tight unity between
body and soul, aimed to reach a state of perfect tranquility (39 ),186
causing prayer to descend from the head to the heart through the continual repetition of the prayer Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have
mercy on me in connection with the rhythm of breathing. The goal
was to pray at every moment, and through this, to reach the contemplation of the divine lightuncreated energy of the essenceas it was
present on Mount Tabor.
The Hesychast movement presented itself as a movement of reform,
in the search of poverty and of the independence of the Church from
182
Cfr. ibidem, 142, 15143, 16.
$
C
&' ; ; Y!% 3 &' $1
$ $
. (DeAn, PG 46, 96C).
The article of M. Jugie in DThC 15 (1946) 513s, was certainly polemical, nevertheless it succeeded in awakening the Orthodox interest. Still, among the collaborators
of the special issue of Ist. in 1974 a certain polemical vis can perhaps be seen. A. de Halleux and G. Philips appear far more balanced (see references in the following notes).
185
For an introductory reading of Gregory Palamas and his doctrine, see J. Meyendorff, S. Grgoire Palamas et la mystique orthodoxe, Paris 1959; V. Lossky, Thologie Mystique de
lglise dOrient, Aubier 1944 and Y. Spiteris, Palamas: la grazia e lesperienza, Rome 1996.
186
Gregory of Nyssa uses the term around forty times.
183
184
46
chapter one
the empire. Palamass adversary was Barlaam of Calabria, who negated

the theological possibility to understand the mystical experience that the
monks of Mount Athos referred to.
The conict had political undertones, and was presented also as a
polemic between East and West, by the Thomistic language of Barlaam
and his school. After various defeats and victories, Palamas became
metropolitan of Thessalonica in 1347, a seat which he took possession of only three years later. The continual struggle eventually took
dramatic tones. After his death on November 14th 1359, Palamas was
canonized in 1368 by the Church of Constantinople.187
The object of controversy was the impossibility to see God and the
theological explanation of the light that the monks of Athos claimed to
contemplate. For this reason Palamas forcefully afrmed the distinction
between essence and energies, which are divine and thus uncreated, but
which do not identify with the essence, of which they are a radiance.
The question is situated in a clearly Neoplatonic matrix.188
The intellectual environment of the Cappadocians was also Neoplatonic,189 from whose theology Palamas is explicitly inspired. This
is clear from a summary examination of his works: in the volume
dedicated to his principle works, edited by E. Perrella,190 the citations
of Gregory alone reach around sixty,191 four of which refer explicitly
to the AdAbl.192 The authority of Gregory of Nyssa is invoked about
ten times in reference to the question of the energies and with the
accusative. Among these last one nds three extended citations193 of the
DeBeat GNO VII/2, 141, 1527, presented on p. 37. The reference of
Palamas to Gregory is therefore explicit.
187
Cfr. Y. Congar, Je crois en lEsprit Saint III, Paris 1980, 9597 and J. Meyendorff,
The Byzantine Legacy in the Orthodox Church, New York 1982, pp. 172175.
188
For an introduction to the relationship of Palamas to patristic thought, see G.
Habra, The Sources of the Doctrine of Gregory Palamas on the Divine Energies, ECQ 12 (1957/8)
244252; 294303; 338347.
189
See I. Pochoshajew, Die Seele bei Plato, Plotin, Porphyr und Gregor von Nyssa, Frankfurt
am Main 2004.
190
E. Perrella, Gregorio Palamas. Atto e luce divina: scritti losoci e teologici, Milan 2003.
191
Some questions in the dispute between Palamas and Barlaam regard directly the
interpretation of Nyssian doctrine, as can be seen for example in the anthropological
realm, where Palamas distances himself from Gregory of Nyssa. Cfr. J. Meyendorff,
A Study . . ., pp. 146149.
192
Cfr. Gregory Palamas, Demonstrative Discourses, II, 50; 51 and 54 (E. Perrella,
Gregorio Palamas . . ., p. 208; 212 and 218) and Idem, Unity and Distinction, 21 (p. 960).
193
Cfr. Gregory Palamas, Dialogue Between an Orthodox and a Barlaamite, 14 and 16
(E. Perrella, Gregorio Palamas . . ., p. 1144 and 1150) and Idem, Barlaam and Acyndinus,
9 (p. 1330).
nature and action
47
The whole problem consists in establishing if the Palamite reading of

Nyssian theology is faithful, above all for the questions of the relationship between immanence and economy, time and eternity. To resolve
this it is necessary to reect on the relationship between energies and
divine Persons, even if it would appear at rst look that Palamas does
not touch this last question explicitly. As S. Bulgakov says: Palamas
almost does not touch the complex and important problem of the
relationship between energies and hypostases (if not in a few separated
phrases that lack rigour).194
However the problem presents a superior degree of difculty;195
in fact neither A. de Halleux, or O. Clment appear of this opinion.
The rst afrms: the energy confers to the essence its concrete and
individual character, it hypostasizes it, playing thus, in God for us
the same personalizing role that the hypostasis lls for God in himself .196
The text of A. de Halleux has the advantage of manifesting a rst
fundamental point, situating the question in the context of God for
us, or the economy. It is however necessary to clarify what Palamas
intends by hypostatizing action of the energy: speaking of the Taboric
light of Christ, he explicitly negates that the light contemplated by the
apostles has a proper hypostasis, as the expression might
erroneously suggest. Instead he afrms that this term expresses the
eternity of this same Taboric light, in the sense that it always is, does
not pass away, does not weaken with time. In fact it is the splendour
of the divine nature, which, in as much as divine action, is covered in
eternity.197 For this reason, the expression personalizing which faithfully
194
Palamas ne touche peu prs pas la question complexe et importante du rapport
entre les nergies et les hypostases (sinon dans quelques phrases spares et manquant
de rigueur) (S. Bulgakov, Le Paraclet, Paris 1946, p. 236).
195
It is necessary to remember that S. Bulgakov identies the energy of wisdom
(sophia) with the divine essence itself, developing in an original manner the theology
of energies. For this reason he is not the best interpreter of Palamas (cfr. V. Lossky, La
thologie mystique de lglise dOrient, Paris 1994, p. 78).
196
lnergie confre lessence son caractre concret et individuel, et dans ce sens,
lhypostasie, jouant ainsi chez le Dieu pour nous le mme rle personnalisant que
lhypostase remplit pour le Dieu en soi( A. de Halleux, Palamisme et Scolastique, RTL
4 (1973) 423).
197
Since is said anypostatic ( ) not only that which is not, not only that
which is pure appearance, but also that which rapidly decays and diminishes, and
which, as soon as begun, is consumed and ceases to be, as is the case of lightning and
thunder, but also for our word and for perception, they [the saints] referring to the permanence and stability of that light, correctly used the term enhypostatic ( ),
48
chapter one
reects the original ambiguity of the Palamite term, needs to be well

understood: it is a personalizing relationship in an analogical sense,
which renders concrete and existing God in time for man, that is in the
economy, through the eternity of the divine action that is resplendent
in Christ.
In as much as divine action, $
founds, instead, an authentic
relationshippersonal in the proper sensewith the three divine Hypostases; in fact: the Greek patristic tradition does not have unity intervene
except as a corrective for the personal distinction. It is thus not on the
level of the essence that Palamas roots the divine energies, but on the
level of the hypostases, and by their reduction, does nothing more than
express the perichoresis of the consubstantial Persons. From the Father,
through the Son, in the Spirit: the common energies thus conserve a
differentiated relationship to each one of the three hypostases.198 The
reference of A. de Halleux to perichoresis is precious, in as much as
it is properly the reality of perichoresis that is revealed through the
economy of divine action.
This relationship with the divine hypostases is expressed well with
the translation of $
by activity, since every activity is always
activity of someone. At the same time the expression respects the
divine transcendence, analogical to that which occurs with the object
and subject of an action.199 For this reason it is important to note that
Palamas appears to follow the denition of $
as +
,
which constitutes a certain bridge between nature and hypostasis, and
coherently applies $
to both man and God. The translation
as activity permits also to eliminate all ambiguity in the relationship
between immanence and economy,200 in the line of the Cappadocians,
from whom Palamas is explicitly inspired.
O. Clment thus seems to be right in afrming that: The energy is
not an impersonal radiance subsisting in itself. It is like the expansion of
since it remains and does not escape those that see it, as lighting, word or perception
(Gregory Palamas, Triads, III, 1, 18; E. Perrella, Gregorio Palamas . . ., p. 802).
198
la tradition patristique grecque ne fait intervenir lunit que comme un correctif la distinction personnelle. Ce nest donc pas au niveau de lessence que Palamas
enracine les nergies divines, mais celui de lhypostase, et par leur rduction lunit,
il nexprime rien de plus que la prichorse des personnnes consubstantielles. Du Pre,
par le Fils, dans lEsprit: les nergies communes conservent donc un rapport diffrenci
chacune des trois hypostases. (A. de Halleux, Palamisme . . ., p. 425).
199
Cfr. Gregory Palamas, Triads, III, 2, 10; E. Perrella, Gregorio Palamas . . ., p. 868.
200
Palamas applies the term $
in the Trinitarian immanence as well to the Son
and the Spirit, understood as hypostatic energies (cfr. J. Meyendorff, A Study . . ., p. 219).
nature and action
49
the Trinity of which it translates ad extra the mysterious alterity in unity.

It is a natural procession of God himself, which bursts forth (in the
sense of the bursting forth of light) from the Father, through the Son,
in the Holy Spirit. It manifests the co-penetration, the perichoresis
of the divine Persons who mutually co-penetrate in such a manner as
to have only one energy .201
For this reason the intuition of J. Meyer is excellent when he suggests
that a path for the theological reunication of the Occident and Orient
could be the deepening of the study of perichoresis.202 This could lead
to a possible openness to the Occidental Filioque, even if only on the
energetic level, that is on the level of manifestation.203
Of particular interest in this regard is the afrmation of O. Clment,
who goes as far as to say: If the monarchic character of the Father as
unique source of the Son and the Spirit is an absolutely incommunicable
hypostatic character, his character as divinity-source (of the essence and
energies), that is his fontal privilege, to adopt an expression from Latin
theology, is this not communicated to the Son, and later from the Father
and the Son to the Spirit, source of our divinization? And could it not
be that this participation in the divinity-source, this rhythm that makes
the Son, then the Spirit, source with the Father, points out a certain
Latin (and Alexandrian) Filioque?.204 These words, as will be seen in
Chapter III, are in particular harmony with the Nyssian doctrine.
The essential point is to interpret Palamas from the optic of Cappadocian, and specically Nyssian, theology, recognizing the mediating
201
Lnergie nest pas rayonnement impersonnel subsistant de soi. Elle est comme
lexpansion de la Trinit dont elle traduit ad extra la mystrieuse altrit dans lunit.
Cest une procession naturelle de Dieu lui-mme, qui clate (au sens dun clat de
lumire) du Pre, par le Fils, dans le Saint-Esprit. Elle manifeste la compntration ,
la prichorse des Personnes divines qui se compntrent mutuellement de faon
ne possder quune seule nergie (O. Clment, Byzance et le Christianisme, Paris 1964,
p. 46) .
202
Cfr. J.R. Meyer, Clarifying the Filioque Formula Using Athanasiuss Doctrine of the Spirit
of Christ, Com(US) 27 (2000) 386405.
203
Cfr. V. Lossky, The Procession of the Holy Spirit in the Orthodox Triadology, ECQ 7
(1948) 4849.
204
Si le caractre monarchique du Pre comme principe unique du Fils et de
lEsprit est un caractre hypostatique absolument incommunicable, son caractre de
divinit-source (de lessence et des nergies), son privilge fontal, pour reprendre une
expression de la thologie latine, ne se communique-t-il pas au Fils, puis du Pre et du
Fils lEsprit, source de notre dication? Et ne serait-ce pas cette participation la
divinit-source, le rythme qui fait le Fils, puis lEsprit, source avec le Pre, que dsignerait un certain lioque latin (et alexandrin?) (O. Clment, Grgoire de Chypre De lekporse
du Saint-Esprit, Ist. 17 (1972) 450).
50
chapter one
role of the energyin as much as activitybetween immanence and

economy. This is an essential mediation since can eventually give the
possibility of participation in the eternal, without blemishing the perfect
transcendence of God.
J. Meyendorff afrms in fact, that The distinction in God between
essence and energythat focal point of Palamite theologyis
nothing but a way of saying that the transcendent God remains transcendent even as he also communicates himself to humanity.205
If the energetic level however, were a sort of barrier or screen that
impeded all access to intra-Trinitarian intimacy, then truly there would
be no possible accord between Orient and Occident. One could at that
moment speak of apophatic absolutism. Instead, The Oriental patristic
Tradition has never declared as unknowable this centre of the intradivine life in as much as it considered as revealed and dogmaticized the
order of the three hypostases in the unique nature.206 For this reason,
Palamas uses both apophatic and cataphatic theology.207
The Palamite doctrine thus wishes to defend the possibility of a real
and profound relationship with the Triune God, that is with the three
Persons in a unique God, known in the experience of a personal relationship and in [silent] prayer. This is in contrast to a direct and merely
cognitive relation with the divine essence. For this reason, J. Meyendorff
while commenting the AdAbl itself, explains that the afrmation of the
essential transcendence of God means that the presence of Jesus in the
heart of the Christian can never be other than a free act (energeia)
of God who remains inaccessible in his essence.208
For historical reasons it is therefore correct to say that, from a practical
perspective: the fundamental opposition is situated in divergent conceptions of the beatic vision and of mysticism.209 But from the strictly
dogmatic perspective, Y. Congar is also correct when he individuates
the profound cause of the divergence on the question of the energies
in a different understanding of participation. For Palamas, even though
205
J. Meyendorff, The Byzantine Legacy . . ., p. 191.

La tradition patristique orientale na jamais dclar inconnaissable ce foyer de
la vie intradivine dans la mesure o elle considrait comme rvl et dogmatis lordre
des trois hypostases en lunique nature (A. de Halleux, Palamisme et Tradition, Irn. 48
(1975) 484 ).
207
Cfr. Idem, Palamisme et Scolastique, RTL 4 (1973) 428.
208
ne peut jamais tre autre chose quun acte (energeia) libre de Dieu qui reste
inaccessible dans son essence ( J. Meyendorff, St. Grgoire Palamas . . ., p. 45).
209
Lopposition foncire se situe dans des conceptions divergentes de la vision bienheureuse et de la mystique (A. de Halleux, Palamisme et Scolastique, RTL 4 (1973) 412)
206
nature and action
51
well versed in Aristotelian logic, participable signies divisibleit was

one of the central issues in the polemic with Barlaam:210 a notion of
participation that is elementary and almost materialistic,211 due to a
philosophical matrix of Neoplatonic origin. The Occident on the other
hand reasons with Aristotelian-Thomistic212 categories, and a far more
sophisticated conceptualization of participation plays the role of the
Palamite distinction.
However the position of Palamas cannot be fully appreciated if one
does not consider his conception of , by which he seeks to
express that the action of Christ, perfect God and perfect man, cloaks
in eternity the temporality of the event, in as much as the movement of
the divine nature can remain available in history, or above history, since
the subject of action is immutable.
The afrmation of this reality is not linguistically simple, in as much
as it touches the most profound roots of the relationship between natural
and supernatural. The great Latin advantage is the development of the
concept and term of distinction: in this case Greek must have recourse
to more adjectives or adverbs to correct the radical nature of &
+,
as can be seen at Chalcedon with the four adverbs. Nevertheless, from
the Latin side, the difference between distinction of reason and real
distinction requires cautious application due to the separation that it
might presuppose between the ontological and gnoseological levels.
Oriental thought is highly sensitive to this possibility: for Gregory and
the Greek world, the division between the order of knowledge and that
of being is simply impossible.213
The distinction thus wishes to protect from the danger expressed
in modern terms by the Rahnerian umgekehrt:214 if one spoke of no
210
Cfr. J. Meyendorff, The Byzantine Legacy . . ., pp. 172174.

Cfr. G. Philips, Lunion personnelle avec le Dieu vivant. Essai sur lorigine et le sens de la grce
cre, Gembloux 1972, p. 253.
212
Cfr. Y. Congar, Je crois en lEsprit Saint III, Paris 1980, p. 103.
213
One can read the action of Justinian in the Council of Constantinople II analogically: he promoted the reinterpretation in a realistic sense of the possibility, afrmed
by Cyril, to distinguish the two natures of Christ in the hypostatic union: interpreting
them not in an intellectualistic senseas if it were an arbitrary distinction created by
the mindbut in the sense of a correspondence between the order of knowledge and
the ontological order, with the afrmation of the indissolubility of the two natures in the
concrete unity of Christ (cfr. G. Maspero, La cristologa de Gregorio de Nisa desde la perspectiva
del II Concilio de Costantinopla, ScrTh 36 (2004) 45).
214
Die konomische Trinitt ist die immanente Trinitt und umgekehrt
(K. Rahner, Der dreifaltige Gott als traszendenter Urgrund der Heilsgeschichte, in Mysterium Salutis
II, Einsiedeln 1967, p. 328).
211
52
chapter one
distinction between the divine activity in time and the eternal divine
essence, the immanent Trinity would coincide simply with the economic
Trinity.215
For these reasons, if the distinction is understood in the sense presupposed by the translation of $
by activity, and if it is situated
in the relationship between #$ and - , one can say that
it is already present in Nyssian thought,216 and presents no dogmatic
difculties.217 It would thus be auspicious, from both the theological
and philological perspectives, to read and interpret Palamas from the
perspective of the Cappadocian theology, from which he is explicitly
inspired. As far as the application of this explanation to mystical phenomena,218 despite the fact that Palamas invokes explicitly the Nyssian
authority,219 the discourse seems more difcult and transcends the limits
and scope of the present study. In any case, it is fundamental to manifest
the profound veneration for the reality of the fruits of sanctity which this
spirituality has given for centuries to the Church, beyond any theoretical
justication. The reality precedes the theological explanation.
215
The Greek ontological mentality refuses this hypothesis so radically that it afrms
simply that no nature can exist or be known without it possessing an essential activity,
as Palamas writes, calling directly upon the authority of Maximus the Confessor (cfr.
Gregory Palamas, Triads, III, 3, 6; E. Perrella, Gregorio Palamas . . ., p. 908). For a more
general reference, see T.L. Anastos, Essence, Energies and Hypostasis: an Epistemological Analysis of the Eastern Orthodox Model of God, Ph.D. Diss., Yale University 1986, pp. 212222.
216
The parallel between Eunomius and Palamas, proposed by B. Pottier, does not
seem at all obvious. He is taking up the afrmations of the article by J. Garrigues in the
Ist. number of 1974. The criticisms of E. Moutsoulas in n. 90 also appear unjust (cfr.
B. Pottier, Dieu et le Christ selon Grgoire de Nysse, Turnhout 1994, pp. 140142).
217
It is enough to remember that the question of the energies was not even treated
in the Council of Florence. It is nevertheless necessary to keep present that a great
expert such as A. von Ivnka negates that a similar distinction can be traced back to
Nyssian thought, even if the present interpretation of $
as activity, situated in
the relationship between economy and immanence, does not contradict his position (cfr.
E. von Ivnka, Plato Christianus, Einsiedeln 1964, 430432).
218
A. von Ivnka distinguishes Hesychasm, as a method of prayer, from Palamism,
as theological explanation (cfr. E. von Ivnka, Hellenisches im Hesichasmus. Das Antinomische der Energienlehre, in Epektasis: Mlanges patristiques offerts au Cardinal J. Danilou, Paris
1972, p. 491).
219
Cfr. Gregory Palamas, Triads, II, 3, 27 and III, 3, 45; E. Perrella, Gregorio
Palamas . . ., pp. 664 and 902906. Palamas explicitly cites the Nyssian commentary to
Stephens martyrdom, who full of the Holy spirit sees the glory of God, as afrmed in
Acts 7.55 (cfr. InSSteI, GNO X/1, 8991). Cfr. also J. Meyendorff, A Study . . ., p. 172.
nature and action
53
III. Unity of Action

a. The Ad Ablabium
Once it is afrmed that the name of God refers to activity and not to
nature, Gregory must then explain why one does not speak of three
gods as one speaks of three men for those that have the same profession. The reasoning is as follows:
For men, even if they exercise in much the same activity ($ ),
complete their own affairs separately, each one alone, without participating
exactly, in the proper activity, with those that exercise the same profession.
For, even in the case of different orators, the profession, which is one, has
the same name in the different orators, while those that exercise it act
each one alone, one and the other pronouncing discourses in their own
way. Therefore among men, the activity of each being divided inside the
same profession, one speaks in a proper way of many men, since each
one is separated in a proper environment, according to the particular
conditions of activity.220
Men act each for their own affairs in the sphere of the different professions. Each one decides for himself and follows his own will in the
particular realm of his own activity. But for God it is not thus:
On the other hand, regarding the divine nature, we have not learned
that the Father accomplishes something by himself, in which the Son does
not participate, or that the Son in his turn operates something without
the Spirit. But every activity ($
), which from God is propagated
to creation and is called according to the various conceptions, has origin
from () the Father, continues (

) by means of (&
)) the Son and is
accomplished in () the Holy Spirit. For this reason the name of activity is not divided in the multiplicity of those who act, since the care of
something is not exclusive to each one in particular. But all that is realized, regarding either our providence or the economy and order of the
universe (; * / ; -
), is realized in
a certain manner by the Three, but they are not in fact three the things
that are realized.221
220
A
"
, E
K V
$ < #, 8 F ; J
$ $! ; , &'

1 8 F ; $:
; ( ; L
& % - $) # . < U4, ; '
4&
S } ; ; ! #
69
, < &'
8 F ; J
$/
-& U 5 &! -& 5 J% / ' ! C
,

&* &

3 ! !
&
F $
,
## 0@
, F 1 - -&
$ +* ) ; -&

$ 1 "##% (AdAbl, GNO III/1, 47, 1121).
221
&' + 9 G A
5 *
!
8 F ,
54
chapter one
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit have a unique activity that has as
source the Father, is made to progress by the Son and is fullled by
the Holy Spirit. For this the activity is one and is not divided into
three. In fact, if we think of the life of grace, we see that it is one and
that there are not three lives. It is a unique life that was given to us
by the Father and by the Son and by the Holy Spirit,222 that is, it is
completed by the Holy Spirit, is prepared by the Son, and depends on
the will of the Father.223
Gregory is inserted into his favorite dogmatic, and spiritual, sphere.
One can note how he moves from one Trinitarian formula to the next,
explicitating in one that which is only implicit in another, thus forming
a stunning picture of perfection and equilibrium.
He continues in his demonstration:
Therefore, in conformity with that which has been said, the Holy Trinity
does not accomplish every activity separately according to the number
of the hypostases, but generates a unique movement and a unique communication from their good pleasure, which from () the Father through
(&
) the Son they direct towards ( ) the Spirit. Thus we do not call
three vivifying Beings Those who actuate the unique Life (@4), nor
three good Beings Those whom we contemplate in the same goodness,
nor do we name in the plural all the other attributes. In the same way
we cannot even call three Those who actuate, united and inseparably,
with reciprocal action, this divine power and activity or supervision, in
both us and the whole creation.224
{ * +
5 < , I #
5 <; -&
@ $!
9 / ,
##) K $
3 *
&
4 ) ) #
0 @ ; +K
&
) / </

B
B =$Q #
/
. &
) / - ; # 1 $ ; $
&
9@
, A
$ F -&
@
3
&4%
##8 A E $
1 L - * 3
+ L ; *
/ ; -
, &
) 1
1 ' $
, * )
$
. (Ibidem, 47, 2148, 8).
222
; </ =$. (Ibidem, 48, 1314).
223
3 * @* ) / =$ $!
) / </
F
@
/ ; R
#4. (Ibidem, 48, 1719).
224
q
&* 8 5
/ - K $
&
?
$! ) ; 1 7
; 3 =$
, ##)
$
/
$ / #4 &
&
, / ; &
) / </ ; ; /
&
R $, D #$ ! @
( ( * $/ @* &' !
$ ( ( $
&' ) "## #
1
R $$##, G &' ! 0@
& ( * ~* e

* & $
&
&
8 ##4# +8 31
$/ . (Ibidem, 48, 2049, 7).
nature and action
55
This is a unique movement (

) that starts from the Father,
passes through the Son and terminates in the Holy Spirit: the three act
following the movement of a unique will each through the other (&
##4#). The source is always the Father, the intermediary position

always that of the Son, that which perfects and concludes is always the
movement of the Holy Spirit.
The apex of the treatise is here: the Nyssian presents the inseparability
of the economy and immanence explicitating the connection between
the energies and Persons. Trinitarian perichoresis becomes the keystone
of dogmatic construction.
Gregory then passes, as usual to Biblical argumentation: he starts
from the demonstration that to be judge of all the earth belongs both
to the Father and to the Son, resolving the apparent contradiction
between Gn 18.25 and Jn 5.22. In fact the Father judges in the Son,
who separates in nothing from his will.225 But Gregory adds, citing
Is 4.4 and Mt 12.28, the Son judges in the Spirit of God.226
In this way every divine activity and every attribute follows the law
of this unique intra-Trinitarian movement. Every operation of God,
whether it regards the cosmos, men or angels,227 is and remains one
and does not fragment into three. Nevertheless three are the subjects
that intervene, each according to his proper personal mode of being.
Finally Gregory concludes:
Therefore, every good reality (K$ ) and every good name, depending
on the power and will without principle, are carried to completion in the
power of the Holy Spirit by means of the Only Begotten God, without
interval of time or of space, since there does not exist any duration in
the movement of the divine will from ( ) the Father through (&
) the
Son to () the Spirit, nor is it thinkable; and one of the good names
and good concepts is that of Divinity. Thus it would not be reasonable
to divide the name in a multiplicity, since the unity in activity impedes
the plural enumeration.228
225
226
227

Cfr. ibidem, 50, 1351, 15.
228
X- &* K $ ; K$ 9 &C #
R &
/ &
) / $/ / 9
&
- #
"$
, &
K / #4

4
; / ; &
) / </ ; / $
I , S &' 1
$ 1 0 3 , E - - # ;
&
9
, ) * $
F # * #
*
.
(Ibidem, 51, 1652, 2).
56
chapter one
Thus one cannot speak of three Gods, since God is a name of divine
activity which is unique in the Trinitarian perichoresis. It is therefore
necessary after having ulteriorly claried the unity of action, deepen the
connection between Trinitarian action and immanence, interrogating
as to whether the Trinitarian formulas regard only the economy, or if
they are also reections of the divine immanence itself. In a second
moment, it is necessary to ask what happens to man who is image of
the Trinity. This is to interrogate as to the relationship between human
action and that of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Finally, as
is right for the last things, we should analyze the value of the Nyssian
reasoning for eschatology.
b. Unity of Action
The argument of the unity of action of the three divine Persons is a
key one for the whole of Gregorys theology. S. Gonzlez afrms that
one hardly nds any important work in which he does not speak at
times of the unity of operation.229 The frequency itself with which
Gregory makes use of this argument is a sign of its importance.
G. Isaye continues further: one could even ask if this is not his argument
of predilection.230 L. Mori denes it even as his battle horse.231
The Nyssian founding principle is that those that have one activity
($
), have necessarily a unique power (&
), and those that have
the same power and activity, have necessarily the same nature (+
).232
The idea is already present in Greek patristics,233 but for Gregory it
229
Apenas hay obra importante en la cual no hable alguna vez de la unidad de operacin (S. Gonzlez, La identidad de operacin en las obras exteriores y la unidad de naturaleza
divina en la teologa trinitaria de S. Gregorio de Nisa, Gr. 19 (1938) 281).
230
Et mme on peut se demander si ce nest pas l son argument de prdilection
(G. Isaye, Lunit de lopration divine dans les crits trinitaires de S. Grgoire de Nysse, RSR 27
(1937) 423).
231
L. Mori, La divinit dello Spirito Santo in S. Gregorio di Nissa. Le operazioni divine. La
santicazione in particolare, in Atti del Congresso Teologico Internazionale di Pneumatologia I, Rome
1983, p. 166.
232
&' 3 $
, 3 &
3 * K $)
$
&C
# . X- 2 $
&
, 1 6

F +
T & ) * & $
&
+)
R; (DeOrDom, GNO VII/2, 41, 610).
233
Cfr. Ireneus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses, 4, 20; SC 100/2, pp. 640641; Athanasius, Epistula ad Serapionem, 28; H.G. Opitz, Athanasius Werke, II/1.5, Berlin 1940,
pp. 178180; Didymus, De Spiritu Sancto, 17, 32, 36, PG 39, 1049BD; Basil of Caesarea,
De Spiritu Sancto, 16, 38; SC 17, pp. 174180.
nature and action
57
assumes a fundamental importance in the confrontation with Eunomius.

Even if it is in a more polemical context, the AdEust had as central
argument the unity of action. The same principle is enunciated here
with great clarity:
Therefore, if we see that the activities ($ ) performed by the
($ )) Father, by the Son and by the Holy Spirit differ one
from another, based in the diversity of activities, we conjecture that also
the natures that perform them are diverse. In fact, it is impossible that
those realities that are separated from each other by natural principle
( ) ; + # $) coincide with one another in the form of
activities (re does not produce cold, nor ice heat), but according to the
differences of natures the activities [performed] by them are also separated one from another. Instead, if we conceive as unique the activity of
the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, [an activity] which is not
distinguished nor changed in any of them, then it is necessary to infer
the unity of nature from the identity of activity.234
S. Gonzlez observes that Gregory considered this argument so efcacious that he wielded it as a two-edged sword, on one side to reduce
to unity the exaggerations of tritheism, on the other side to be able to
extend the divinity to the third Person, against the Macedonian heresy.235 This also explains its diffusion in the Nyssian works.
As can be seen in the AdAbl,236 unity of action is strongly afrmed
both for visible creation and for the angels (K
-4
7
).237 Clearly, in conformity with Scripture,238 one notes an
insistence on the role of the Son in creation, but also nothing is done
234
/ ) L& &
+ ##4# ) $ ) ) /
/ </ / =$ $ , &
+ .
)
$ +
F 1 $
1 9 @ . &' $) &9
) &
1 ) ; + # $ ; ; 1 $
1 .& ##4#

9
(w i9
; / w
5 ##), ##) 1 +
&
+ &
9@
8 ##4# < ) $

. ) &'
4 * $
</ =$ & &
+

I ## , $
$ ; 3 +
##$@
. (AdEust, GNO III/1, 11, 315).
235
Por tan ecaz tena Gregorio este argumento que lo manej como espada de
doble lo, por un lado para reducir a la unidad las exageraciones del tritesmo, y por
otra parte para hacer extensiva la divinidad a la tercera persona en contra de la hereja
macedoniana (S. Gonzlez, La identidad de operacin . . ., p. 285).
236
237
Cfr. RCE, GNO II, 336.
238
Cfr. Jn 1.3 and Col 1.16.
58
chapter one
by the Father without the Son.239 In this manner, it is the Father, the
Son and the Holy Spirit who, in the unity of their activity, govern the
world through divine providence.240
The same thing happens in respect to life of the Spirit, which is
given to us through Baptismal grace.241 Each one of the three Persons
is said to be @
/ , without the possibility of speaking of three
@
/.242 The same is true for the pardon of sins243 and for
salvation in general.244
One can thus conclude with S. Gonzlez that: According to Gregory
of Nyssa, both the common operations, and those said to be appropriations, are one effect alone in whose production the three divine Persons
intervene in equal manner.245
Nevertheless one cannot afrm that the three Persons remain indistinguishable in action. Each intervenes in the unique movement according
to his personal characteristic. The denition of $
as +

is particularly useful here: it has been seen that the $

multiplies according to the natures, as in Christ, following the rst
term of the formula. The second term however opens to the personal
dimension. This can explain also the difculties that the energies and
will have encountered in the history of dogma, in as much as they can
be interpreted either in the light of nature, the rst term, or in that of
the person, the second term. This is close to the distinction of modern
philosophy between volont voulante and volont voulue.
The fact that the three Persons intervene in the unique

according to their proper personal characteristics is expressed by
Gregory through the Trinitarian formulas. He does not limit himself to
the </ =$, of the RCE,246 which
only juxtaposes the three Persons, and is the least frequent schema.
Instead, by far most common is the schema ;&
</
239

241
242
Cfr. ibidem, GNO II, 382.
243
Cfr. DeOrDom, GNO VII/2, 260, 2830.
244
On the role of activity-energy in the defense of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, see J.J.
Verhees, Die ENERGEIAI des Pneumas als Beweis fr seine Transzendenz in der Argumentation
des Gregor von Nyssa, OrChrP 45 (1979) 531.
245
Segn Gregorio de Nisa, tanto las obras comunes come las llamadas de apropriacin, son un solo efecto en cuya produccin intervienen por igual las tres personas
(S. Gonzlez, La identidad de operacin . . ., p. 291).
246
RCE, GNO II, 336.
240
nature and action
59

which appears continually in the AdAbl. In the AdMac for
example, we nd: ; 9 &
</ ~/

=$Q #
.247
As is evident from the AdAbl itself, the prepositions can vary, even if
the &
of the Son remains always unvaried.
The inversion of order is also interesting, when the Trinitarian order
is contemplated from below, that is from the perspective of human
knowledge as can be found in the AdMac. It recalls immediately in its
symmetry the divine missions: &
) / . . . &
) / </ )
/ ;.248
Thus, for the Nyssian the activity of the three Persons is always
unique, without this unicity veiling the personal characteristic of each
one. This is possible since the Persons act &
##4#,249 and this in its
turn is possible because they act one with another, that is ##4#

+ and ##4#.250 The unity of action is nothing other
than the economic reection of the perichoresis, in which the three
Persons are united without being confused, co-present one to another
in reciprocal love.
One should note that the term
9C
does not appear in the
Nyssian works. It is used for the rst time in a Christological context
by Gregory Nazianzen,251 and only much later in the Trinitarian realm
by the Pseudo-Cyril, between 657 and 681.252
Nevertheless the theological concept is clearly enunciated by Gregory
of Nyssa, who does not show any sympathy for the term
9C
,
perhaps due to the physical connotation that was connected with it in
the Stoic school.253
The Nyssian doctrine is developed above all on the texts of Jn 10.38
and 17.21. In particular one nds the clear and concise afrmation
that each of the divine Persons contains the others and is contained
247
AdMac, GNO III/1, 100, 911. It is found also in Ep 24, GNO VIII/2, 77, 46
AdMac, GNO III/1, 106, 2324. The formula, also referring to supernatural life,
found in AdAbl, GNO III/1, 48, 1719 is similar.
249
250
251
Cfr. Gregory Nazianzen, Epistula 101, 6; SC 208, p. 38.
252
Pseudo-Cyril, De Trinitate 10, PG 77, 1144B. For a general reference to the history of this Trinitarian term, see G.L. Prestige, X\X and X\OO in the
Fathers, JThS 29 (1928) 24252; Idem, Co-Inherence, in God in Patristic Thought, London
1952, pp. 282301.
253
Cfr. D.F. Stramara, Gregory of Nyssas Terminology for Trinitarian Perichoresis, VigChr
52 (1998) 257258.
248
60
chapter one
in turn (##) ##4# + $$

&
( 9
),254
in such a way that:
Therefore the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are always recognized in the perfect Trinity, in intimate connection and reciprocal union
(# . . . ##4#).255
All ows from the intimacy of the Trinity and the unity of action is
the consequence of the immanent perichoresis: activity ows forth
from intimacy.
c. Economy and Immanence
In Arian theology, the generation of the Son automatically implied
subordination. Being generated, the Son had necessarily to be subordinated. For this reason, if one places in doubt that the action of the
Son in timethe economyis anchored to the immanent mode of
being of the second Person, the whole strength of the argument against
Eunomius is lost. The Word must be the perfect Image of the Father
also in his action.256
Commenting the Johannine prologue, Gregory says:
The Father is principle (94) of all things. But it is proclaimed that the
Son is also in this principle, since he is by nature that which the principle is. In fact, God is principle and the Word that is in the principle
is God.257
Thus the Father and Son are inseparable:

The Son is in the Father, as the beauty of the image is in the form of
the model ( 9Q +), and the Father is in the Son, as the
exemplary beauty (; ##) is in its own image. While
with the images made by the hand of man, there is always a temporal
distance between communicated image and model, in this case however,
the one cannot be separated from the other.258
254
##) ##4# + $$

&
( 9
% (AdArium, GNO III/1,
82, 2829).
255
/ # 5 * 5 <; ; / ; Z$

8 ##4# #:
&
$@
(AdMac, GNO III/1, 98, 2830).
256
Cfr. C. Schnborn, Licne . . ., p. 46.
9* &' / ; 5 4. ##8 9 ? 5 <; .
4
! ) * +

, A 3 94. ; $) 3 9* 5 9 # $

. (CEIII, GNO II, 193, 2326).
258
5 ' <; B , D ; - ## 9Q +,
5 &' * B <B, D -
F / ; ##. ##8 '
257
nature and action
61
The Son not only possesses that which the Father possesses, he possesses
the Father himself.259 Therefore the name Father signies two Persons,
since the idea of Son follows spontaneously on the idea of Father. In
such a manner, in saying Father, our faith pushes us to think of the
Father with the Son.260 The same is said of the Holy Spirit, who is
inseparable from the Father and the Son.261
In this sense the Nyssian collocates human paternity and liation
to divine paternity and liation. Thus divine liation is at the heart
of his theology;262 in fact, in the struggle for the consubstantiality of
the second and third divine Persons, he afrms that it is properly the
name of Son that best guarantees the communion of nature of Christ
with both God and men. For this he is said Son of Man, indicating that
he is from human nature, and Son of God, indicating that he is of the
divine nature:263
And it is exactly this word that is the strongest defense (A#) of the
truth. In fact no other name indicates as much the Mediator () between
God and men,264 as he is called by the great Apostle, as the name of Son.
For it is applied equally ( ) ; L) to either the divine nature or to
the human one. It is in fact the same who is both Son of God and had
become Son of man in the economy ( - ), to unite in himself,
through the power of the communion [of natures] ( ; F

:) that which in nature had been separated.265
1 9
4 - 5 &
) 9 * #+! +* ; /
&
k
, ! &' 6
9
/ F ; J (CE I,
GNO I, 209, 814).
5 $) ) / ; 69 F B 6

A
1 / ; 69
.
- &* 69
F B ) B , K## &' ; ; , )
/ ; 1 / ; A# ; # F B 69
; B. (CE II, GNO
259
I 288, 1923).
260
Cfr. CEIII, GNO II, 81, 34 and CE II, GNO I, 208, 1114.
261
w 9

/ / n 6
I / # $ / / n ! (OrCat,
GNO III/4, 13, 68).
262
Cfr. G. Maspero, YX[N[p, [y[[ e O`[: La teologia della storia di
Gregorio di Nissa, Excerpta e dissertationibus in Sacra Theologia 45 (2003) 421.
263
264
1 Tim 2, 5.
265
; $
# A# { 5 # $ . ; $) /
C, M 5 $ #, &' G D ; / </ &

, F : +
, : ?, ) ; L + @ . 5 $)
; / <
<; C 8 - $, h ;
F
: &
8 F / i? ) &
1 +
. (CEIII, GNO II, 35,
1219).
62
chapter one
By the unique mediation of Christ human liation and divine liation

are united forever in the Person of Christ himself, Only Begotten Son
of the Father.266 The passage is quite theologically dense, also for the
sphere of the sanctication of man, which for Gregory is nothing other
than being truly sons of God. It is the power of the divinity, which
Christ possesses by his communion with the nature of the Father, that
unites the two natures in Christ. It is this union that heals the lack of
union that is found in man on the horizontal level. Thus the horizontal
level is founded on the vertical level, in a double movement that recalls
the Cross.267
The central category for the Son is
, which for Gregory is
inseparable from his mode of being God, that is from his being a
Person. In a passage which will be treated in Chapter III, the Nyssian
distinguishes in the immanence the three Persons to defend himself of
the accusation of confusing them in a unique principle, as if this were
a sort of return to rigid monotheistic Judaism:
And in that which originates from a cause we perceive another difference: one thing is to be immediately (91) from that which is rst
( / C), another is to be through (&
) that which is from the
rst immediately. Thus to be the Only Begotten remains incontestably
in the Son, and there is no doubt that the Spirit is from the Father, since
the mediation of the Son ( / </
) maintains in him the
being of Only Begotten, and does not exclude the Spirit from a natural
relation with the Father.268
This intermediate position in the Trinitarian immanence is conserved in

the economy, in the mission: Gregory uses the same term,
, for
both the Son in immanence and for the Christ in the economy.269
266
It is interesting to observe that in the Council of Chalcedon it is repeatedly said that
Christ is perfect (#
) in divinity and perfect in humanity, that he is truly (#1)
God and truly man, that he is consubstantial (5
) to the Father according to the
divinity and consubstantial to men according to his humanity. But his eternal generation and his generation in time are expressed by the unique participle of $ ,
which is not repeated twice, so as to underline the continuity between procession and
mission (Cfr. G. Alberigo et al. (Ed.), Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, Bologna 1973,
p. 86, 1431).
267
The Nyssian appreciates and explicitly treats this theme (cfr. J. Danilou, Le symbolisme cosmique de la Croix, MD 75 (1963) 2336).
268
/ R - #
"## &
+) /% ; ' $) 91
/ C, ; &' &
) / 91 / C, H ; $' +#
/ </
, ; / ; .
; / * +
##
, / </

B ; $' +# ; / +
; ;
9 *
$. (AdAbl, GNO III/1, 56, 410).
269
Cfr. InIllud, GNO III/2, 21, 15 and RCE, GNO II, 374, 10.
nature and action
63
Further the correspondence in the use of &

is remarkable, to
which we will return in Chapter III: in the variety of formulas used
by the Nyssian, the prepositions that express the action of the Father
change ( , ), maintaining always the idea of origin, and those of
the Spirit (, , ), maintaining the idea of term or perfection,
but the preposition for the Son is always &
.
Thus the Father is the unique origin of Trinitarian action as he is the
unique origin and source of the Trinity itself. And the Spirit carries to
completion and perfection this movement, which starts from the Father
and is made to progress by the Son, just as his personal characteristic
consists in being the bond of the immanent dynamic in intimacy of
the three Persons. The personal mode of being of the Holy Spirit will
be analyzed in Chapter III.
The Trinitarian formulas refer to the unique economic activity of the
Trinitarian Persons, but it is evident that each of them enters into the
unique action according to his own personal characteristic: the Father
is source, the Son is mediator, the Spirit carries to perfection and closes
the Trinitarian dynamic, both in the economy and in immanence. Thus
with the words of G. Isaye: the mention of the personal properties
becomes an incontestable afrmation of the unicity of operation.270
S. Gonzlez observes that, while not being exclusive, the privileged
schema in the Nyssian Trinitarian formulas is -&
-, the language
of which can already be found in the New Testament.271 He continues:
But the most interesting thing of this schema consists in a certain
analogy that exists between this formula and the others that refer to
Trinitarian immanence.272
The unique action is born in fact from the unique will. In CE II
Gregory uses the image of the mirror:273 the will of the Son follows
the unique movement (#4
) initiated by the Father, as
an image of a mirror. In this way the second Person of the Trinity is
immediately and inseparably coordinated to the rst (
&
&

B ). And the Son is not passive in
this movement, in fact:
270
la mention des proprits personnelles devient une afrmation incontestable de

lunicit dopration (G. Isaye, Lunit de lopration . . ., p. 438).
271
In particular: 1 Cor 8.6; 12.13 and Rm 11.36.
272
Pero lo ms interesante de este esquema est en cierta analoga que existe
entre esta frmula, y aquellas otras que se reeren a las operaciones intratrinitarias
(S. Gonzlez, La identidad de operacin . . ., p. 294).
273
Cfr. CE II, GNO I, 288.
64
chapter one
The Father wanted something, and the Son who is in the Father, had
the same will as the Father, or better yet, he himself has become the
Will of the Father.274
And this making of himself the will of the Father is properly the being
of the Son. That which in the eyes of the Arians, is the proof of the
subordination of the Son to the Father, that is his action in obedience
to the Father, his instrument role in his regardis precisely that which
is revealed as the mystery of the communion of the divine Persons.275
It is obedience itself that becomes for us image of the Father, since it
is not extrinsic obedience, but reaches to being itself: obedience is the
mode of being itself of the Son, that is his Person. For this the unity
of will does not exclude personal difference, but rather founds it.
The Arian error is exactly that of confusing the personal order with
the substantial order. Scripture itself speaks of a R
: the Father is
before the Son, who on his turn precedes the Spirit. But that says
nothing of a possible difference of nature. It is only the relationship
of origin.
The Son has the same nature as the Father, he has one will with
him. But he has them in as much as Son, according to the proper mode
of his being Son. This mode of existing ( 7R) is at
once the origin of each hypostasis and its manifestation. The Son is
image of the Father since he is born from him and acts in all as Son.
Thus the manner in which the Son is the perfect image of the Father
is clear: in that he serves the design of the paternal will; for that is his
mode of being the obedient and loving Son, who renders visible for
us the goodness of the Father.276
274
#
5 * 5 B <; .9 ; # / , K##
&' ; / ; $ # . (CE II, 1 , 288, 1719).
275
Ce qui, aux yeux des ariens, est la preuve de la subordination du Fils au Pre,
savoir son agir obissant au Pre, son rle instrumental par rapport lui, cela prcisment se rvle ds lors comme le mystre mme de la communion des personnes
divines (C. Schnborn, Licne . . ., p. 49).
276
Le Fils a la mme nature que le Pre, il a une seule volont avec lui. Mais il les
a en tant que Fils, selon le mode propre de son tre de Fils. Ce mode dexister (
7R) est la fois celui de lorigine de chaque hypostase, et celui de sa manifestation. Le Fils est limage du Pre parce quil est n de lui et parce quil agit en tout comme
Fils. Ainsi apparat clairement la manire dont le Fils est limage parfaite du Pre: en ce
quil sert le dessein de la volont paternelle; car tel est son mode dexister de Fils obissant et aimant, qui nous rend visible la bont du Pre. (Ibidem, p. 50). On the (limited)
value of the Cappadocian use of the expression 7R in the Trinitarian
context, see L. Turcescu, Gregory of Nyssa . . ., pp. 103106.
nature and action
65
His mode of being God is thus to be Son. But a Son accomplishes

perfectly the will of his Father and is not preoccupied with anything
but to give him all glory.
Eunomius objects then, that this obedience of the Son is nothing
other than a necessity, that is that the nature itself of the Son is obedience.277 But if this were so, the Son would be inferior even to men, who
are free. Gregory thus distinguishes the human obedience of Christ in
his Passion from this divine obedience. The role of the Son in creation
on the other hand shows his divinity. In fact the &
/ indicates
the very mode of being Son, of being the Image of the Father, who
in his turn acts and is known exclusively per Filium.
Thus only if the &
/ of the economy is prolonged in immanence does Gregory have a true response to Eunomius. In the contrary
case, either one makes of the Son and of Christ two different beings, or
one reduces the Son to the economic level. It is worth noting that the term

was not used without danger in the Neoplatonic context in which
Gregory moved, as J.-R. Bouchet has noted.278 The only mode to avoid
confusing the mediation of Christ with the hierarchy of subordinating
and subordinated mediations presupposed by the theology of Eunomius, was to indissolubly unite the immanent
of the Son to
his economic
. Thus the missions are conceived as extensions
of the processions, and there is no separation nor confusion between
natural and supernatural.
In truth, that which the Son has revealed to us of himself is profoundly paradoxical, that is that he is in all obedient to the Father, and
in all united to him. In God there is no domination of superior on
inferior: obedience is identical to liberty, total self gift is identical to
total self possession.279 This is something inconceivable for the human
intellect, unreachable in starting from below.
If one changes perspective and assumes the regard from above,
one also discovers that, with the same absolute liberty with which
the Son inserts himself in the unique movement of the divine action,
277

Cfr. J.R. Bouchet, Le vocabulaire de lunion et du rapport des natures chez S. Grgoire de
Nysse, R Thom 68 (1968) 576.
279
En vrit, ce que le Fils nous a lui-mme rvl est profondment paradoxal,
savoir: quil est la fois obissant en tout au Pre et uni en tout Lui. En Dieu il ny a pas
de domination du suprieur sur linfrieur: lobissance est identique la libert, le don
total de soi est identique la pleine possession de soi (C. Schnborn, Licne . . ., p. 53).
278
66
chapter one
making himself the Will of the Father (cfr. p. 64): by his will God has
accomplished all things and both without tiring and without struggle
the divine will becomes nature.280 Gregory is explaining that the divine
action does not admit intermediaries. Immanence and economy are
immediately collocated. For this reason in creation, there is not even a
preexisting matter, but: the divine will has become matter and essence
(G# ) of created realities.281 Thus nature, and in a particular
manner human nature, is the will of God.
d. The Unity of Men
The question concerning the relationship between human nature and
divine nature appears unavoidable. In fact, J. Zachhuber observes an
incoherence in the logic of the AdAbl: Why would Gregory go to the
effort of demonstrating the unity of human nature, to then afrm that
God is a name of the activity?282 G.C. Stead accuses the Nyssian of even
more severe incongruencies.283 Worth noting is the difculty to consider
an ancient writer or thinker, particularly a Father of the Church, as
incongruent. Often the problem is on the part of the modern reader,
who is incapable of placing himself in the position of the writer, or projects on the work under analysis his own problems or categories. There is
always the possibility of confusing theory and reality, afrming that the
information is in error since not in accord with the formulated explanation.
In the concrete case of the relationship between divine nature and
human nature according to Gregory of Nyssa, the risk is more acute,
as the interpreters are often preoccupied in order to defend Nyssian
orthodoxy, with underlining the difference between the two natures. For
example S. Gonzlez uses the afrmation of the AdAbl that the activity
280
A
# 5 ; ) $
A
$
; ! # +
$. (CE II, GNO I, 293, 2830). A
3 5*

, A #
, K$ $
,
/
; # ( 3 +

$
(DeAn PG 46, 124B). See also InHex, PG 44, 69A.
281
- $) ) 6
7
G# ; ; +

##) ; ! # G# 1 &
$ $
(InIllud, GNO III/2, 11, 46).

282
283
G.C. Stead, Why Not Three Gods?: The Logic of Gregory of Nyssas Trinitarian Doctrine,
in H. DrobnerCh. Klock (dir), Studien zu Gregor von Nyssa und der Christlichen Sptantike,
Leiden 1990, pp. 149163.
nature and action
67
of man is divided according to the multiplicity of subjects to limit the

extension of the social analogy.284
The risk here is ever to interpret Gregory starting from below. Instead,
all his anthropology is based in Christology, and ultimately in the
Trinitarian doctrine.285
In the rst place, the objection of J. Zachhuber does not appear to
sufciently take into account the connection between unity of nature
and unity of energeia, that Gregory vigorously sustains. Clearly, by
itself, this position would leave him open to the accusation of tritheism,
but only if the divine nature is judged based on the understanding of
human nature, and not vice versa, as would be more logical since the
human nature is image of the divine (cfr. the text of DeHom on creation,
image and likeness of p. 9).
Gregory clearly has before him the difference between God and
man: it is radically based on the innite distance between created and
uncreated nature, which is God himself. But it is precisely the evidence
of this innite distance that permits the Nyssian to so arduously follow
the path of the social analogy, faithful to a concept of divinization
that cannot but leave the modern reader, and in a particular way, the
western reader, stupeed.
Thus Gregory afrms above all that, if men are united among
themselves through free choice, they will never be through this like the
Blessed Trinity, since men can conform their liberties to their physical
conjunction that unites them, but the distance between the divine and
the human remains innite:
For example, the Lord is called good and pious 286 by the Prophet. And the
Lord wishes that we in our turn become and are called good and pious.
284
Cfr. S. Gonzlez, La identidad de operacin . . ., p. 294 and 298. In this sense his study
anticipates that of L. Ayres and the authors of Re-thinking Gregory of Nyssa.
285
For this reason the following comment of A. Quacquarelli is well made: da
premettere che il termine antropologia qui viene usato non nel signicato onnicomprensivo dei giorni nostri, ma in un senso molto preciso del martire come homo Christi.
Si tratta di un aspetto da mettere bene in luce per non cadere nelle astrazioni che certi
studiosi ad ogni passo credono di trovare nelle opere del Nisseno. Non bisogna lasciarsi
ingannare dalla coincidenza di termini comuni al platonismo, allo stoicismo e al cristianesimo in A. Quacquarelli, Lantropologia del martire nel panegirico del Nisseno a san Teodoro
di Amasea, in Arch e Telos. Lantropologia di Origene e di Gregorio di Nissa. Analisi storico-religiosa.
Atti del colloquio, Milan, 1719 maggio 1979, Milan 1981, p. 217.
286
Ps 103.8.
68
chapter one
In fact [he says] be merciful,287 and blessed are the merciful 288 and many similar
precepts. Thus if, conforming ourselves (5
C ) with diligence and
attention to the divine will, we become good and merciful and pious, or
meek and humble of heart, as is attested that many saints have obtained
such privileges, is it for this that we are one with God, or we are united
to him thanks to one of these virtues? It is not thus. In fact, that which
is not one in all, cannot be one with he who is diverse by nature. Therefore, a man becomes one with another man, when, by free choice (
)

) as the Lord says, they reach the perfection of unity,289 since
to physical conjunction ( +
+ ) is added the unity by
free choice (* )
F ). And the Father and Son
are one, since the communion by nature and by free choice concur in
unity. But if [the Son], conjoined only by will, were nevertheless divided
according to nature, how could he testify by himself of the union with
the Father, if divided in that which counts most? Thus, hearing I and the
Father are One,290 we learn from this expression both that the Lord [has
origin] from a Cause (R -), and that the Father and the Son are
identical according to nature. And we do not reduce to one hypostasis
the conception that we have, even if, keeping distinct the properties of
the hypostases we do not divide in the Persons (! C
) the unity
of essence.291
It is obvious that physical conjunction ( +

+ ), that
is the unity of human nature, does not exactly coincide with the unity
of the divine nature. In fact the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit
are identied each one with the whole of the nature, while men only
participate of the same nature. Returning to the terminology of the
287
288
289
290
Lk 6.36.
Mt 5.7.
Cfr. Jn 17.23.
Jn 10.30.
291
T [- #4 5
, ) / +4 #$
. / #
#
5
3K $ 0@
% p $) -

< #4 A
/ . 8 2, L
&
) 9
#
B Q #4
F ; 5
C $ ; I - #4 $ I K

; &:, M
## 1 =$ ! 4

$
, ) / J -
; ; ; I &

; ;

l 6
/ . ; $) * K
; S .
; ; +
&
## $ &
. &
) / " ; " S $
, A &
)

, M . 5
, #
1
- ; J, +
+ *
)
F # . 5 * 5 <; J -
, ) *
+
*

- ; S & . - &' B #4
Q
) * +
&
, 1
F B * ; ;
F , B
Q &
9
l P A
q$M 5 * J
, R - ;
; ) * +
## / </
/ ; +
&, - 7
* 1 6

#+, ##) +# ' &
? * 1 7 -&
,
&

/ &' ! C
* F (CE I, GNO I, 171, 4172, 3).
nature and action
69
rst part of this chapter, for the Divinity the intensive and extensive
aspects of nature coincide, while for mana being in timethis is not
so. The key concept is that created nature is specically temporal, that
is that it extends in time.
For this reason, the true identity of human nature is to be sought only
in its eschatological realization,292 possible only in the humanity of Christ:
The Lord is life,293 and through him, according to the words of the
Apostle, the whole body is given access to the Father when he consigns
the reign to our God and Father.294 And his Body, as often is said, is the
entire human nature to which he has indissolubly united ( 9)
himself.295 For this same reason, the Lord is also called by Paul, Mediator
() between God and men.296
In this way the true human nature is that of Christ, that is of his Body
understood in a Pauline optic and perfected in unity, through which
one has access to the Trinitarian intimacy. Christic mediation is thus
the key to understand the unity of human nature.
He is the First Fruit that each man must imitate. In the InIllud Gregory
comments 1 Cor 15.28, explaining the signicance of the subjection
of the Son to the Father as the subjection of all things to the Father
in Christ. This subjection will be the total purication of evil, which
will realize the unity of the body of Christ:
When then, by imitation of the First Fruit ( )
9),
we will all be freed of evil (6R / /), then the whole mass of nature
(; + +), united inseparably to the First Fruit and become
one compact body (S ) ; 9' 1 ), will accept in itself the
dominion of the only good.297
292
Perhaps it is this aspect precisely, which does not appear to receive sufcient attention by S. Coakleys research group, that is the reason for the imperfect agreement of
the results of the analysis presented in this section and those of L. Ayres in Re-thinking
Gregory of Nyssa.
293
Cfr. Jn 14.6.
294
Cfr. 1 Cor 15.28.
295
With this translation the true Nyssian thought is hopefully expressed: there is no
confusion, as the use of the verb to mix would suggest, but indissoluble union, that is an
irreversible process, as happens in physical mixing itself.
296
@* &' 5
, &
8 2 $
, ) ; #
; # $, B C
/ 3 $$* ; ; , z &

&B *
# 31 B B
. 1 &' /, M L
##
, K 3 +
9.
r
8 ; &' / ; / C ) /
# 5
. (InIllud, GNO III/2, 21, 712).
297
A 2 )
9 6R / / $C , A# ;
+ + 9
9' S ) ; 9' 1 $ /
$ / * 3$ +8 F / &R
(Ibidem, 16, 1316).
70
chapter one
The key concept is imitation. In homily VII of DeBeat, commenting

Mt 5.9, Gregory collocates
to divine liation, which properly
consists in imitating the love of God for men:
For this [the Lord] calls son of God the worker of peace, since he becomes
imitator (
*) of the true Son, who gives this to the life (@) of men.
Therefore, blessed are the workers of peace, since they will be called sons
of God. And who are they? Those who imitate the love of God for men,
that is those who show in their own lives () that which is proper to
the divine activity ($ ).298
One notes the necessity to imitate the divine activity in everyday life,
in the , something possible only for the supernatural life (@)
that God communicates to men. As will be seen in Chapter II, this is
congured as imitation of Christ, Only Begotten of the Father who
became man for us. Gregory can thus say to his reader that it is the
will of God that your life be a Psalm,299 in the sense that, as the Psalms
typologically announce the life of the Messiah, so the life of the Christian must imitate that of the Model to give to God, the Father, all glory.
It is in Christ that man, a poor creature, can make himself similar to
God, reaching imitation also in his activity. The connection that passes
from nature to energy can be followed in the opposite direction, to
become participants in the divine nature (
+)300 in
the imitation of the life and action of Christ.
In this way man is called by Christ, with Christ and in Christ301 to
act in communion with the three Persons of the Trinity, accomplishing
in every moment the will of the Father, that the Spirit of Christ communicates to us. The perfect example of this is given to us in the Holy
Family, where participation is lived in Trinitarian coordination: nothing
is held in reserve for oneself, no one simply acts on his own behalf, but
everything is placed at the service of the marvellous divine plan. Thus
the Trinitarian coordination becomes in Christ a human ideal.
298
r
) / <; Y/ ; -
; 0@
, A

* $
/ #
/
</, 5 / 1 C @ 9
@ .

< -
, A
< Y/ #4

. ` {
; [<
+
# < ;
L&
/ / $ / -& &
. (DeBeat, GNO VII/2, 159,
1319).
299
300
; $) ; i #; .

&
#
(InInsPs, GNO V, 75, 17).

+ (2 Pet 1.4).
301
This is a Trinitarian formula: by Christ to the Father, with Christ, in the Spirit
of Christ. J. Mouroux afrms: notre foi est christologique; et parce quelle est christologique, elle est trinitaire ( J. Mouroux, Je crois en Toi, Paris 1966, p. 37).
nature and action
71
In fact the difference between the Trinity and man is manifested

in the possibility of autonomy, that is in the possibility that human
persons act each for their own in separated actions. In God on the
other hand:
The name of activity is not divided in the multiplicity of Those who act,
since the care for something is not particular and exclusive to someone.302
In the Trinity, all have at heart everything so to say: none acts just for
ones own good since there is one Life, one movement and manifestation. For men it is not thus, but it can become so in Christ, through
divinization in as much as restoration of the original image, which
makes each man the body of Christ. In this way the path is opened to
participation in the Trinitarian coordination, which in the 94, belongs
in some way to human nature itself: in fact each man naturally tends
to act for others, and when by disgrace or the chances of life, the one
who inspired the acts of a person passes away, a great pain is felt: as
a Father to whom a son dies, who asks why, or better for whom, he
will now work. Or as the lover that loses the beloved, on awaking in
the morning nds no reason to get up. Profoundly, for man, there are
not for whats, but for whos.
In the same homily Gregory presents the differences between the
man who acts in imitation of God and the man who acts deprived of
peace. For peace consists in the loving disposition towards those who
are similar. Whoever does not have it lives in hate, in anger and envy,
thus in the persistent memory of received offences.303 For those that
continue in relationships of reciprocal hate and suspicion, encounter
is a source of displeasure and reciprocal relationships are nauseating.
Mouths are mute, eyes are disdainful and ears are deaf to the others
voice: to each is foreign that which to the other is agreeable.304
302
&
) / - ; # 1 $ ; $ &
9@
,
A
$ F -&
@
3
&4% (AdAbl, GNO
III/1, 48, 35).
`
3 -4 1 4. ` "## I $
4
; ; 5 +#
&

; 2
; R $? ; !, 0$*, ;, + ,

, 7

, 3 ) # +. (DeBeat, GNO VII/2, 154, 711).
304
`/ &' A $ ; &' .
9
&
R

B # $Q. (
) ;
## $

T 5 1 ##4# &
7i 9 ,
W &
' < 9
, &#) &' ! ) ##4# , "+$$ &'
) , ) # * + $ /
/

+. K &' +# F Q 1 g * B FQ +#, /
K 9; #
g B &!
. (Ibidem, 154, 1826).
303
72
chapter one
This representation is in complete contrast with the divine promise,

according to which the condition that awaits man according to Gods
plan is something completely different:
Man overcomes his own nature, becoming from mortal, immortal, from
fallen, incorruptible, from ethereal, eternal (k&
), in short, becoming
from man, god. He who has received into himself the honour of becoming son of God, will certainly have in himself the dignity of the Father,
and becomes inheritor of all the paternal goods.305
It is the man who is cinder and grass, the man full of vanity, who is
rendered similar to God being assumed to the dignity of son,306 receiving likeness to that which God is by nature.307
The nature of man was thus created to be one. The vision of eschatological unity is found for example, in the DeMort, where humanity is
contemplated in the unique twinkling of glory, which will shine in all
as the sun, in such a way that each man gives to others happiness and
they be lled with joy, in the mutual contemplation of each ones perfect beauty.308 Thus humanity recalls to the Nyssian the sea which must
have profoundly moved him, as it returns so often to him as an image
to express the profundity and unknowability of God (see p. 35):
Say the incredible marvel, that is how the people of the myriads of men,
so tightly united as to recall the vision of the sea, was united in the union
( ) ; 9')309 of a unique body.310
The same theme is present in the InCant, when it describes the future
unity of the disciples in one body and one Spirit, placing in relationship the unique is my dove, my beloved of Song 6.9 with that they be one of
Jn 17.22, a key text for the present question.311
305

* F / +
5 ", / R
4
4 R + k&
; A# ; R C $
. _ $) Y/
<; $
R
JR
F B / ; ; R , $
1
1 $ 1 # (Ibidem, 151, 1520).
306
-
/
, - </ R
) / Y/ 1 A# # . (Ibidem,
51, 1112).
307
X- $) A
) * +
, * -
! C

9 @
"##, I 9 5

) &
) $$ $$##
; (Ibidem,
151, 2426).
308
Cfr. DeMort, GNO IX, 66, 1016.
309
The expression is exactly the same as that of the just cited passage of the InIllud
(InIllud, GNO III/2, 16,15; cfr. p. 69; see also p. 24). It appears 11 times in total in the
Nyssian work.
L ;
/ , 1 - # i
5

& S a ) ; 9' (OrFuMel, GNO IX, 456, 57).
310
311
Cfr. InCant, GNO VI, 466, 10467, 2. See L.F. Mateo-Seco, La unidad y la gloria,
nature and action
73
In the DeBeat, commenting blessed are peacemakers, for they shall be called
sons of God,312 Gregory touches directly the theme of the relationship
between human nature and divine nature. His conclusion is surprising:
Since then, it is believed that the divine nature (; !) is simple
(=#/), free of composition () and impossible to represent
(9
), when human nature (; C
) is liberated from
the double composition, and returns perfectly (
1) to the good,
having become simple and impossible to represent and truly one (D
#1 S $ ), then that which appears will be the same as that
which is hidden, and that which is hidden the same as that which appears,
then truly is carried to accomplishment the beatitude and such men are
truly called sons of God, proclaimed blessed according to the promise
of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for eternity. Amen (Gal 1.5, Heb
13.21 and 2 Tm 4.18).313
Surprisingly, human nature in the eschatological state is called simple

(=#/) and impossible to represent (9
), attributes clearly
exclusive of the divine nature. The perfected human nature is however
not dened as free of composition (). Human nature will assume
the characteristics of the Eternal and will be like one (D #1 S
$ ), that is the body and soul will be in harmony without opposition as in fallen man. Probably the Nyssian does not add
since this, in a difference from the three divine Persons, reaches unity
after decomposition, in the very unity of the Body of Christ. Men were
created to live in unity and charity, but original sin decomposed this
marvellous unity, obscuring the image from which it proceeded. In the
eschaton, through the imitation of Christ and by his work of redemption,
when the last man shall be born and shall have died, the unity will be
reestablished in the nal resurrection. All of humanity, henceforth the
Body of Christ, will be full of the love of the Father and it will be seen
that the only true love is that which proceeds from the immanence of
in J. Chapa (Ed.), Signum et testimonium. Estudios ofrecidos al Profesor Antonio Garca-Moreno en

su 70 cumpleaos, Pamplona 2003, pp. 179198.
312
Mt 5.9.
q
&* =#/ ; ! 9
.

, A ; C
&
)
-
k 6R )
* &
# $

1 - ; $ ; #?, =#/
9
D #1 S $ , D ; .
B B ; +

B +
Q ; , #1 /
5
; #$
<
/
< Y/,
) * $$# / y 31
/ \
/, n 3 & R - ( -1 1 -C. P4. (DeBeat, GNO VII/2, 160,
313
21161, 5).
74
chapter one
the three eternal Persons. For this reason, commenting Jn 17.2123,

Gregory afrms:
That they be one as we are one. In fact, it is not possible that all become
one as we are one, if not in the case that, freed (9
) from all
that divides the one from another, they unite themselves to us who are
one, so that they be one as we are one. But how does this happen? It is not
possible that I alone be in them, but it is absolutely necessary that You
also be there, since You and I are one. And thus they will be perfected in
unity, those who have arrived at being perfect in us. For we are one. But
[the Lord] explains such a gift (9
) more clearly with the words that
follow, saying You have loved them as You have loved Me. In fact, if the Father
loves the Son and we are all in the Son, in as much as we have become
his body by the faith in him (&
) - ; ), in consequence
(#) he who loves the Son himself loves the body of the Son, as
the Son himself. And we are the body.314
The passage shows well that economic love is not different from immanent love and that true love comes from within the Trinity.315 Men are
therefore called in Christ as sons in the Son, to participation in the very
divine perichoresis to which they have access through the hypostatic
union,316 and the perfect unity of the body of Christ, which represents
a certain eschatological perichoresis of every man.317
One should not therefore underestimate the unity of human nature.
The connection between the double dimension of creation and the
double dimension of the +
nds its completion in the eschatological coincidence of the two aspects: intensiveness, which places in man
314
V
S M 3! J % $
& ; "## ( S
$
y M 3! J, - * 1 8 ##4# ( &

@
9
F! 3! h
J, V
S M 3! J. /
&' 1 $
l A
q$M !. $
& ; ' $
!,
##) ,
&* q$M ( J . G $4
`#

- ; S < 3! #

% 3! $) ; J. `* &'
9
+ C
&

B +R # $Q G -M A
$ ( M ' $ . $) 5 * $ ; < , &' B <B $
< &
) - ;
1 / $

, # 5 ; <; F / $ 1 $ / </ ;
1 D ; ; < % 3! &' ; 1 . (InIllud, GNO III/2, 22, 2223, 14).
315
This does not appear to be in complete agreement with the afrmations of
V. Lossky in V. Lossky, Thologie Mystique de lglise dOrient, Aubier 1944, p. 210.
316
To understand this passage it is essential to not undervalue the impact of the
dynamic conception of the hypostatic union that characterizes Nyssian thought: cfr.
G. Maspero, La cristologa de Gregorio de Nisa desde la perspectiva del II Concilio de Costantinopla,
ScrTh 36 (2004) 124.
317
Participation in the Trinitarian perichoresis is already evident in Mary: cfr.
J. Ratzinger, Das Neue Volk Gottes. Entwrfe zur Ekklesiologie, Dsseldorf 1969, 283284.
nature and action
75
the image of God, and extensiveness, which presents the whole of

human nature in its historical and numeric perfection as the perfection
of the same Trinitarian image in the sons of God. Restoration and
access to the Trinitarian perichoresis are possible in the human nature
of Christ, through which unity and simplicity are diffused to all men
whose nature is the same as Christs, permitting an analogous human
perichoresis.318
Judgment on the social analogy cannot abstract from the eschatological dimension, since it reveals the authentic extent of the creation of
man at the image of the Trinity. The thesis of L. Ayres does not seem
to respond to the whole of the theological thought of Gregory, that
is the thesis by which the analogy of three men, object of the AdAbl,
would simply be one analogy among many, as when the Nyssian uses
analogies of wine319 or of arrows320 in a Trinitarian context.321 For
wine and arrows are not created in the image of the Trinity as man
is, and are not characterized by a unity of nature and a multiplicity
of hypostases.
The afrmations of S. Coakley and L. Ayres are surely correct when
they afrm that the social analogy is not psychological but ontological.
Yet it is for this that it assumes an even greater importance, transcending the function of a simple image or analogy, in so far as it is an
expression of the relationship itself between the Trinity and man. The
inestimable value of the AdAbl, for which it has been constantly cited
throughout history (and not solely recently nor solely in Anglo-Saxon
writings)322 is founded precisely on the admirable synthetic discussion
of the possibility to attribute the terms +
and 7
to the
Trinity and to man: a possibility that is at the foundation of the lofty
vocation of man, called into the unity of the Body of Christ to participation, as sons in the Son, into that eternal dynamic of love that
constitutes divine intimacy.
318
The point does not appear fully appreciated by N. Harrison, when he afrms that
the unity of men cannot follow the model of Trinitarian perichoresis due to creatural
niteness. Instead, it is precisely the Christological mediation that opens to man, in
eschatological anticipation, the possibility of Trinitarian intimacy through divinization,
conceived in all of its ontological depth (cfr. N. Harrison, Human Community as an Image
of the Holy Trinity, SVTQ 46 (2002) 353).
319
Cfr. CEIII, GNO II, 3638.
320
Cfr. InCant, GNO VI, 12728.
321
Cfr. L. Ayres, Not Three People . . ., p. 454.
322
Where it was certainly interpreted in the psychological line, as S. Coakley and
L. Ayres correctly observe.
76
chapter one
e. The Apokatastasis
1. The Interpretations
After having considered the role of the universal human nature and having underlined that man was created in the image of the divine nature
in order to reach the communion of the Trinity itself, it is necessary
to ask whether this remarkable union will be brought about automatically by the mere fact of belonging to human nature.323 The question
is not explicitly present in the AdAbl, but the impetus of the theological
reading of the treatise suggests at least a brief treatment.
This problem, which presents a notable complexity, has made a
comeback recently thanks to the work of M. Ludlow,324 who compared
the concept of universal salvation in K. Rahner and Gregory of Nyssa.
As far as the Nyssian is concerned, the conclusion of the work is that
the great Cappadocian was certain of the salvation of every man,
guaranteed by the simple fact of being a man.325 M. Ludlow is not an
isolated voice: J. Gath is of the same opinion,326 as well as, above all,
H. von Balthasar.327
This reading however, is not in perfect harmony with the importance that Gregory attributes to lifethat is to the biography of
persons, in as much as this offers to man the path to imitate the Lord
Jesus and thus reach divinization.
, the life of Christ, virtue
and sacraments, the fundamental principle of # ,328 would all
lose their importance. Above all, the perfect equilibrium that Gregory
reaches between person and nature would be a mere illusion since, when
all is said and donethat is in eternityonly nature would count.
323
For an introduction to the eschatology of the Fathers, see G. Florovsky, Eschatology in the Patristic Age: an Introduction, StPatr 2 (1957) 235250.
324
M. Ludlow, Universal Salvation: Eschatology in the Thought of Gregory of Nyssa and Karl
Rahner, Oxford 2000.
325
For example, see ibidem, p. 44.
326
Cfr. J. Gath, La conception de la libert chez Grgoire de Nysse, Paris 1953, pp. 187
195.
327
Cfr. H. von Balthasar, Prsence et pense, Paris 1947, p. 40. It is nevertheless necessary to observe that one of the specialists of Nyssian thought, D.L. Bals, has dened this
book of Balthasar as Deep and original, though somewhat forced (D. Bals, Metousia Theou: mans participation in Gods perfection according to St. Gregory, Rome 1966, p. 16). In
general this great theologian seems to many perhaps too speculative and original in his
own thought to offer fully objective patristic analysis. For a criticism to the lack of personalism and unilateral identication of liberty and nature in the work of J. Gath see G. Dal
Toso, La nozione di proairesis in Gregorio di Nissa, Frankfurt am Main 1998, pp. 303306.
328
Cfr. J. Danilou, Ltre et le temps chez Grgoire de Nysse, Leiden 1970, pp. 1850.
nature and action
77
These perplexities are conrmed by the authoritative J. Danilou, who

afrms of Gregory without mincing words: One cannot even say that
he holds the thesis of universal salvation.329 Even more authoritative
are the ancient witnesses, such as Germanus of Constantinople330 (8th
Century), and in a special way, that of a truly authorized interpreter
of the Nyssian: Maximus the Confessor (580662).
He, in his work of Quaestiones, interrogationes et responsiones,331 defends the
orthodoxy of the Nyssian
, and this after Origen himself
was condemned in the Synod of Constantinople of 543. Maximuss
interpretation, perfectly in line with some of the texts of Gregory
already seen,332 distinguishes between the knowledge of and participation in goods. All men at the end of time will have access to knowledge
of the divine goods, since all will be awakened and God will be all in
all; but he not found worthy of the kingdom of God will not have part
in him, and it is properly in this that will consist his condemnation and
damnation: he will know but not participate. Perhaps it is the insufcient understanding of the intimate connection between gnoseology
and ontology that explains the conclusions of the work of M. Ludlow.
Surely this author is right when she afrms that Nyssian eschatology
is an inaugurated eschatology, nevertheless the analysis of texts remains
unconvincing. This is largely since it is only a synchronic analysis,333
while both J. Danilou334 and A.A. Mosshammer335 sustain a total necessity to consider the development of Gregorys thought.
329
On ne peut mme pas dire quil tienne la thse du salut universel ( J. Danilou,
Ltre et le temps . . ., p. 224). Note that this work is from 1970. In 1940, thirty years earlier,
J. Danilou had already treated extensively the theme, afrming, however, that Nyssian
thought on universal salvation was uctuating (cfr. J. Danilou, Lapocatastase chez Saint
Grgoire de Nysse, RSR 30 (1940) 348). It is an indicative sign of the complexity of the
problem, which gives even more authority to the afrmation of the mature theologian.
330
Cited by Photius in Myriobiblon sive bibliotheca, PG 103, 1105B1108D.
331
Cfr. Maximus the Confessor, Quaestiones, interrogationes et responsiones 13, PG 90,
795B. The critical edition of J.H. Declerck, Maximi Confessoris Quaestiones et dubia, Turnhout 1982, q. 19 ( I,13), pp. 1718 is fundamental for a clear understanding of the text
under consideration.
332
See, for example, the text on p. 44, and the following commentary.
333
Some authors, who reach the conclusions similar to those of M. Ludlow, limit
themselves to only the rst period of Nyssian production. For example: M. Pellegrino,
Il platonismo di S. Gregorio Nisseno nel dialogo Intorno allanima e alla resurrezione, RFNS 30
(1938) 437474.
334
Cfr. J. Danilou, La chronologie des oeuvres de Grgoire de Nysse, StPatr 7 (1966) 159169.
335
Cfr. A.A. Mosshammer, Historical time and the apokatastasis according to Gregory of
Nyssa, StPatr 27 (1991) 70. See also Idem, Non-Being and Evil in Gregory of Nyssa, VigChr
44 (1990) 136167.
78
chapter one
M. Ludlow presents two fundamental reasons to maintain that

Gregory was certain of universal salvation:
i) Evil is considered as non-being, thus limited and nite. For this reason
its effects would be destined to disappear in eternity, consumed by
the purifying re.336
ii) The Nyssian conception of universal nature would thus envision the
reason of salvation in the simple belonging to the human race.337
The adopted reasons are valid, but their interpretation does not appear
satisfactory, since it is insufcient to explain the different attitudes
reserved by tradition for Gregory and Origen. The former explicitly
attacks the Alexandrian for the preexistence of souls,338 and situates
the proper conception of
in a notably different context.339
As for the assertions of M. Ludlow it would appear that:
i) The author is right to recognize the intimate connection between

and the nitude of evil. But this does not necessarily
imply the salvation of every man. In fact divinization is conceived
of by Gregory as a dynamic procession of participation in intimate
divine life that is without end.340 Evil is opposition to this movement.
He who remains xed in evil in life enters into eternity statically. He
does not participate in the divine goods, but only knows how they are
and thus suffers. The re itself is not always understood as purifying
and medicinal: he often refers to it as medicinal in as much as the
fear it induces dislodges men from sin in this life. For example, in
the DeBeat, the Nyssian speaks of Gehenna, of the unquenchable
res, of the worm that does not die and of the perpetual weeping
as medicines that push to change ones life, by the certitude that
they await the sinner.341 Homily V is also terrifying, above all in the
336
Cfr. M. Ludlow, Universal Salvation . . ., pp. 8689.

Cfr. ibidem, pp. 8995.
338
Cfr., for example, De Anima et Resurrectione, PG 46 113BC.
339
There are, nevertheless, some authors that maintain that Gregory accepted without reservation the Origenistic conception, such as S. Lilla, Lanima e la Resurrezione. Gregorio di Nissa, Rome 1981, p. 31. For the diametrically opposed position see: M. Azkoul,
St. Gregory of Nyssa and the Tradition of the Fathers, Lewiston 1995, pp. 141148.
340
Cfr. C. von Schnborn, ber die richtige Fassung des dogmatischen Begriffs der Vergttlichung des Menschen FZPhTh 34 (1987) 347.
337
341
$ + / * # C# $;
0& # ; &
#
(DeBeat, GNO VII/2, 100, 2628). together with
100, 1101, 9, passim.
nature and action
79
nale when Gregory, after having spoken of the rich man who does
not nd mercy at the moment of his particular judgment, since he
was not merciful to the poor, afrms that the rich in the nal judgment, when the King of creation will be revealed to human nature,
will have before him on one part the ineffable reign, and on the
other terrible punishments. All that was hidden will be revealed,
and the shortcomings of mercy will be openly known. He who did
not show mercy will not receive it, he who passed by the aficted
will be passed by as he perishes (
!& #
,
+4?
##). No one can illuminate the shadows, nor extinguish
the ame, nor placate the worm that has no end.342 Gregory constantly highlights liberty and the connection between this life and the
next.343 Even the famous passage of DeVitaMo,344 which is probably
the last occurrence of
in a chronological order, is
preceded by a reafrmation of the connection between punishment
and human liberty.
ii) As for the role of human nature, the cited work of J. Zachhuber has
provided privileged clarications to the question. His analysis shows
that the notion of universal human nature is not at the conceptual
base of Nyssian soteriology. Only in a limited number of partially
signicative texts could it serve as a support for a doctrine of universal salvation. Zachhuber observes that Gregory uses the concept
of universal nature in his theology of creation, but that it is totally
absent in his soteriology. It starts to reappear in eschatology, and
above all in the doctrine of apokatastasis. He afrms categorically that
The apokatastasis of our physis in its original form would thus refer
exclusively to the restoration of mans original state of communion
with God with no universal implications whatever.345
For this reason Gregorys apokatastasis is different than that of Origen: it
is a return only in the sense that it will reintegrate man in his original
perfect state, while The complete number of men is constituted, not
342
` $
; ; `
* +# $ ; ` i
;
# C# ; (Ibidem, 136, 1719). In general, pp. 135136.
343
The Nyssian explicitly afrms in reference to Rm 6.1723, that not even God,
who freely called us to liberty from the slaves that we were, could place human nature in
servitude (cfr. InEccl, GNO V, 336, 1618).
344
Cfr. DeVitaMo, II, 82.
345
80
chapter one
restituted, in the nal restoration.346 Thus the interpretation of the Nyssian application of human nature to the economy must take account of
his optimistic conception of human nature itself, in as much as likeness
with God, obscured yet not cancelled by original sin. Gregory afrms
that in truth nothing that leads to sin is passion,347 and that our nature, even
if composed, is a harmonious combination of dissimilar elements. This
harmony is only weakened (#) and not destroyed by sin.348
Further, the presence and action of grace in creation are to be considered; thus: for Gregory, human nature as the creation of God is
responsible for the continuity of Gods presence in this world. It is the
bond that ties together God and man.349
2. Gregory
The analysis of J. Zachhuber is conrmed by the reading of 39 passages in which Gregory has recourse to the term
or
to the verb
:
1. The dependence of Gregory on the terminology of the LXX (about
40 times) and the New Testament is immediately evident. In particular one notes an echo of the return of the people to the promised
land announced to their fathers by Jeremiah (cfr. Jer 16.15; 50.19)
and of the restoration to the original state of youth with which the
story of Job culminates (cfr. Job 8.1; 33.25). Naturally, the most
immediate reference is to the only two New Testament occurrences,
that is to Mt 17.1112, where there is reference to the restoration
that Elijah must accomplish, and to Acts 3.2021, where it is the
nal restoration announced by the prophets that is referred to, that
is to the denitive institution of the Kingdom.
2. Use of terms close to
in the natural sciences, so
dear to the Nyssian, is found next to Scriptural inspiration, as can
be seen in the case of the orbits of planets (ConFa, GNO III/2, 35,
9 e CE II, 71, 1516; GNO I, 247, 1819), of the return of the sick
to health (DeOrDom, 44, 2021), or of the cyclical return of water
to the earth (ApHex, PG 44 113A).
346
347
Ibidem, p. 242. Italics mine.
&' ) #4
, g * - = +
(CEIII, GNO II, 144,
1617).
348
349
nature and action
81
3. In a properly theological context, Gregory returns to the expressions

in question to indicate the return of the heretic or the sinner to full
ecclesial communion.350
4. However by far the most signicative use, from both the quantitative
and qualitative perspectives, is that in relation to the restoration of
man to the original state of image and likeness. This is in fact the
completion of the reditus which awaits man at the end of time.351 It
is the return to the divine image operated by the resurrection (3
- - ; 9 !
).352 This connection
with the resurrection is the most evident element in the analysis of
the passages in question.353 It is the return to paradise354 that Christ
has obtained for man, and that was the ultimate reason for his terrestrial life.355 The ackowledgment that the human body is part of the
nal
and destined to paradise is fundamental.356
5. Only two passages could be interpreted in the sense of nal salvation
of the damned. The rst is the famous passage of DeVitaMo, where
Gregory afrms that after three days the shadows dispersed for the
Egyptians (cfr. Ex 10.22): this could, possibly (9 ), be interpreted
as a reference to the nal restoration which also awaits those that
are condemned to Gehenna.357 The authenticity of the passage has
been denitively proven by J. Danilou.358 The second passage is
situated in a sacramental context: the Nyssian afrms strongly that
it is not possible for man to resurrect except through Baptismal
regeneration.359 He immediatly species that this does not refer to
the natural and necessary resurrection of the human composite, which
350
Basil, in fact, seeks to have Eunomius return (
) to the Church (cfr.
CE I, GNO I, 23, 2425). Similarly, in EpCan, it is afrmed that the scope of penance is so that the penitent can be re-established in Ecclesial communion (- *
q#
) and in the participation in the good (cfr. EpCan, PG 45,
232C).
351
Cf. DeMort, GNO IX, 51, 1618.
352
DeVirg, GNO VIII/1, 302, 6.
353
Cfr. InEccl, GNO V, 296, 1618. The expression returns a little further on, in the
context of the Nyssian explanation of the parable of the lost sheep (cfr. ibidem, 305, 10).
See also DeAn, PG 46, 148A.
354
Cfr. DeHom, PG 44, 188CD and DeBeat, GNO VII/2, 161162.
355
Cfr. CE III, 1, 51, 89; GNO I, 21, 1819.
356
Cfr. DeOrDom, 49, 48.
357
Cfr. DeVitaMo, II, 82, 15; SC 1, p. 155.
358
Cfr. J. Danilou, Lapocatastase chez Saint Grgoire de Nysse, RSR 30 (1940) 328347.
359
Cfr. OrCat, GNO III/4, 91, 35.
82
chapter one
awaits all men, but to the restoration of man to the blessed and
divine state.360 Only those who have let themselves be guided by
their Baptismal purication will have part in this, in as much as the
similar tends to the similar.361 He who lets the passions have the upper
hand will need to be puried by re to enter, and only after much
time ( ! G -1
), into the blessed life.362
In synthesis it seems that only these two passages could lead to accept
that Gregory sustained a universal salvation. Yet even the last step does
not appear necessary from logical inference: for example, in a recent
article, S. Taranto interprets these two texts as references to Purgatory.363
The name of the Nyssian has been tied by the theological tradition to
the doctrine of intermediary eschatology.364 In the DeVitaMo Gregory is
referring to $ , a term that already in the 2nd century had assumed
the signication of a state of intermediary purication.365 Instead, to
refer to hell, Gregory uses the terms & or 9 . As for the passage
of the OrCat, S. Taranto does not refer the possibility to purication
through re to those who have not received Baptism, but only to those
who, having received Baptism, have not assumed Baptismal purication
as guide of their own existence. Otherwise, Gregory would in fact contradict his immediatly preceding armation by which the resurrection
to eternal life is impossible without the washing of Baptism.366 The
interpretation of this passage as a negation of the possibility of eternal
condemnation would be, at the least, problematic.
360

362
Cfr. ibidem, 91, 1992, 8.
363
S. Taranto, Tra losoa e fede: una proposta per una ermeneutica dellescatologia di Gregorio
Nisseno, ASEs 17 (2002) 557582.
364
Cfr. Thomas Aquinas, Contra errores graecorum, p. 2, c. 40. The citation is from De
Mortuis Oratio, GNO IX, 54, 1520.
365
Cfr. S. Taranto, cit., pp. 580581 (in particular n. 103).
366
Cfr. ibidem, pp. 573574. One could object to S. Taranto that, at the end of the passage in question (OrCat, GNO III/4, 92, 7), Gregory writes that those who are
,
that is not initiated into this purication, can be saved only through re. It is necessary,
however, to remember that for Gregory one is initiated to the Baptismal mystery to live
it, therefore he who does not act coherently with his Baptism while having received it
has not truly completed his initiation, he has not carried to its completion. The interpretation of Taranto can thus be seen as in agreement with the Gregorys sacramental
conception and has the merit of avoiding interior contradiction in the passage.
361
nature and action
83
3. Evolution
Even if it seems difcult to doubt the real possibility of condemnation
in eternal life;367 it is enough to consider the following passage:
Certainly, there is not reserved to all who resurrect from the sepulcher of
the earth an identical condition. But it is said: they will go as many as have
done the good to a resurrection of life, and as many as have done evil to the resurrection of condemnation.368 In a manner that, if the life of someone is oriented
towards that terrible condemnation, even if providentially by the birth
from above is counted among the brothers of the Lord, he may deny the
name (of Christian); denying in the form of maliciousness the intimate
relationship with the First Born. But the Mediator between God and men369
who in himself (&
F /) unites human nature to God [the Father]
( B B ; C
), unites to himself only that which is
worthy of connaturality with God (; ; ; +k ). As he united
in himself (<> F B Q) to the power of the Divinity his
own humanity, which was certainly part of the common nature, without
being submitted to those passions of nature that provoke to sin (it is said
that he did not commit sin, and no lie was found on his lips);370 in the same way,
he will also guide each of them to union with the Divinity, if they do
not carry along with them anything that is not worthy of the connaturality with God. But if someone is truly the Temple of God,371 since he
does not have in himself any image or shadow of iniquity, he will be
admitted by ( #+4
;) the Mediator to participation in the
Divinity ( ), he will be made pure to receive his
pureness. For Wisdom will not enter into a soul that works evil,372 as the
Scripture says, nor does one who is pure see anything in his soul except
Godbut united to him by incorruptibility, he receives into himself the
whole good Kingdom.373
367
The same authors who think that Gregory maintained the idea of a universal
salvation must admit that the optimistic vision of the Nyssian is accompanied by an
afrmation of the future condemnation. See, for example, J.R. Sachs, Apocatastasis in
Patristic Theology, TS 54 (1993) 640.
368
Jn 5.29.
369
1 Tim 2.5.
370
1 Pet 2.22.
371
Cfr. 1 Cor 3.16; 2 Cor 6.16.
372
Cfr. Wis 1.4.
[ * L
B ) / Q ( / $ 9C
&9
, ##)
, +, < ' ) $ )
4 -

@, < &' ) + /# R -
. H L
;
* +)

5 #
, {, E &
) " $4
! &#+! /
9?, i&
/ 0 ,
+ * ; ; $9
. 5 &'
/ C 5 &
8 F / B B ; C
!
, A E ; ; ; +k "R

. H $) ; F / "
&
<> F B Q, '
+ ,
373
84
chapter one
The eschatological conception of Gregory is thus Christocentric, since

everything is through Christ: the one who distances himself from his
model, and thus loses the image, he is unworthy of connaturality with
God and cannot have part in the celestial kingdom. It is worth noting
here the idea of J. Danilou that Christian eschatology is not an 69
but an 69 .374
The elect will be images of the Image ( - - ),375 for
this each of them will be alter Christus, ipse Christus. Therefore, Gregory,
commenting the fact that on the third day of creation, in Gn 1.1112,
the sprout precedes the seed, afrms that this signies that the resurrection will be nothing other than a return to that initial state;376 but
he species that:
Adam, the rst man, was in fact the rst ear of grain. But after humanity was fragmented into a multitude by the insurgence of malice, as the
fruit develops at the interior of the ear, so we single men, stripped of
that form of the ear and mixed with the earth, we are born anew in the
resurrection according to the original beauty, having become, instead of
that original ear, innite myriads of harvests.377
Sin introduces multiplicity and multiplicity becomes a positive principle. The vision of Origen is extremely distant. It is possible that the
Nyssian started from positions similar to those of the Alexandrian, but
* !
7 + ! - = #

( $, +, &' 7 & # B
/)% G
( 8 J R
+: , - &' $
;
; ! +k R
. ##8 L
#1 L / ; &' L&#
+& F B
9, { 7; / ;
#+4
, ; $ ; * 7&9* / . w
$) - 9 i9* -#
+ , M 5 # $ +, w 5 ;
&: "##
) ; ; F B #
, n &
) + ##
; F / K * $ *
# &R . (DePerf, GNO VIII/1, 204, 9205,
14).
374
Cfr. J. Danilou, Christologie et eschatologie, in Das Konzil von Chalkedon III, (A. GrillmeierH. Bacht Eds.), Wrzburg 1954, pp. 269286. For a similar approach to Nyssian theology, see A. Ojell, El telos escatolgico de la vida cristiana. La vida en Cristo segn
San Gregorio de Nisa, in C. Izquierdo et al. (eds), Escatologa y vida cristiana, XXII Simposio
internacional de teologa de la Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona 2002, pp. 353373.
375
DePerf, GNO VIII/1, 196, 12.
376
Cfr. DeAn, PG 46, 156D.
377
_ $) 1 9 5 1 " a P&. P##8
&*
- &Q - # 3 +
, M $
5 ; B 9~% G <
8 J $ / ) ; 9 ! L&, $
9,
#

) ; 9$ ## + , F; / C
9

& 1 #k $
(Ibidem, 157B).
nature and action
85
J. Danilou shows numerous signs of the progressive abandonment of

Origenism on Gregorys part.378 In his rst phase of literary production before the death of Basil, the Nyssian deals with the theme of the
resurrection highlighting the difference between the terrestrial body
and resurrected body (DeMort). In the succesive works, he will instead
underline the identity and intimate connection of the body before
and after the resurrection (DeHom, DeAn, DeTrid, OrCat), this under
the inuence of the De Resurrectione by Methodius of Olympus: the
principle preoccupation will be to afrm the identity of the resurrected
body and the terrestrial body. Gregory develops the interesting theory
of an information by the eidos, by the form of the body that the soul
is, by its elements, is such a way that they remain united even in the
intermediary state.379
Another theme that is present is that of the Platonic cavern:380 it
appears in DeMort, InInsPs and DeBeat. In these works the myth is used
to indicate the present life, which one must leave behind. But the perspective changes after 382. The writings of InDiem, Ep 3, InSSteI and
Antir are successive to Gregorys journey to Jerusalem, and under the
inuence which the grotto in Bethlehem had on him the symbology is
transformed, since now the cavern of life is illuminated by Christ.
In the DeVirg, the DeMort and the DeBeat, InInsPs and DeOrDom, human
life is seen as an exile. Later, Gregory will develop another anthropology according to which the presence of the spirit on earthand thus
its union to the body of manis the result of a harmonious design:
God did not want for any of the parts of the cosmos to be deprived of
the presence of the spirit.381 This is a key theme for the DeInfant.
Further, in the InInsPs there is an important change in the development of Nyssian thought, since the term # appears,
378
Cfr. J. Danilou, La chronologie . . ., pp. 159161.

Le souci principal sera dafrmer lidentit du corps ressuscit et du corps terrestre. Grgoire dveloppe la thse intressante dune information par leidos, par la
forme du corps quest lme, de ses lments, en sorte quil leur reste uni, mme dans
ltat intermdiaire. (Ibidem, p. 160).
380
See the interesting article of W. Blum, for this aspect of Nyssian thought, in which
is shown not only the Platonic inuence, but also the Aristotelian one: W. Blum, Eine
Verbindung der zwei Hhlengleichnisse der heidnischen Antike bei Gregor von Nyssa, VigChr 28
(1974) 4349.
381
Plus tard, Grgoire dveloppera une autre anthropologie, selon laquelle la
prsence de lesprit sur la terreet donc son union au corps de lhommeest le rsultat dun dessein harmonieux, Dieu ne voulant pas quaucune des parties du cosmos soit
prive de la prsence de lesprit. ( J. Danilou, La chronologie . . ., p. 161).
379
86
chapter one
the key to Gregorys method,382 a key that distinguishes him from

Basil.
To sum up, one could hypothesize an evolution for Gregory similar
to that of Jerome, who abandoned Origenism precisely after a voyage
to Jerusalem.
4. Terminology
Moreover it does not appear totally correct to presume that the Nyssian
depends exclusively on Origen. The article of
O. Siniscalco383 is a precious contribution to reconstruct the possible
inuences that Gregory underwent. Certainly the medical usage, in the
context of Galenus, is an important one for Gregory. But it is above all
interesting to see how the Gregorian senses are in close contact with
the use of the verb in the LXX.384
Also important is the contribution of the Apologists. The verb appears
once in the Dialogus cum Tryphone of Justin, three times in the Oratio ad
Graecos of Tatian, and twice in Theophilus; the noun appearing once
in the Dialogus cum Tryphone.
As for Tatian, the verb appears twice in the same passage of Oratio
ad Graecos 18, 6 (Marcovich, PTS 43/44, p. 38): in the rst case (18,
6, 3), it signies restituting someone in exchange for another, while in
the second case (18, 6, 8) it signies to heal, as in the medical context. The passage is nevertheless quite interesting, since the complete
expression is ( C - ; 9 !
1
, and the
context is eschatological. The same type of context is found with the
third occurrence of the verb in Oratio ad Graecos 6, 4, 5 (p. 16), where
it is accompanied by ; ; 9 !. The underlying idea is that the
resurrection will reestablish the corporeal substance in the state it was
in before death. This use is similar to the Nyssian one: ; 9 !
is the most common expression accompanying
in
Gregorys works.385
Theophilus, in book II of the Ad Autolycum, comments the account of
creation in Genesis. Having reached Chapter 17, about the creation of
the animals on the sixth day, he says that when man will have returned
382
La clef de la mthode de Grgoire (Ibidem).

O. Siniscalco, P
e
nella tradizione della Grande Chiesa no
ad Ireneo, StPatr 3/1 (1961) 380396.
384
For example in Es 14, 26, to refer to the waters of the Red Sea that drown the
Egyptians.
385
For example: InEccl, GNO V, 296, 318; DeAn, PG 46, 148A together with 156B;
DeHom, PG 44, 188BD.
383
nature and action
87
to the more tting paths for his nature and have abandoned the paths
of evil, then the animals will also be placed into the state of original
docility (II, 17, 23; Marcovich, PTS 43/44, p. 64). The second passage,
in book III ch. 9 of the Ad Autolycum, is extremely interesting, since it
refers to the liberation after the crossing through the desert and the
stay in Egypt (III, 9, 31; Marcovich, PTS 43/44, p. 110). A. Mhat
afrms that the term in this passage refers to a denitive installation
rather than a restoration.386
The noun appears in the Dialogus cum Tryphone (134, 4, 2; Marcovich,
PTS 47, p. 302). The context is soteriological: contrary to Noah who
gave Canaan into slavery to his two other sons (Gn 9.25), Christ freed
all, slave and free, ransoming them with his blood and the mystery of
the Cross. The idea of a new condition is more important here than
that of restoration. it is the rst time, to our knowledge, that the use
of this term is found in the works of a Christian author with a signicance that is new and special in respect to the previous uses. It is a
genuinely Christian notion.387
Ireneus offers more abundant material, and his inuence on Gregory
should be reevaluated. Limiting ourselves to the part of the Adversus
Haereses found in Greek, in book III the verb refers to the restoration or restitution of the Law of Moses to the people by Esdra, after
the corruption in the time of imprisonment (III, 24, 1; Harvey II,
p. 114). In II, 49, 3 (Harvey I, p. 375), the verb has a medicinal-curative
sense. In a number of passages the noun also appears, particularly in
the description of the Gnostic beliefs. In this context the astronomical sense is found. It is from this Gnostic humus that the conception
of the apokatastasis as a reestablishment in a perfect and original state
comes forth, a meaning that will be taken up by Origen. Ireneus on
the other hand does not undergo any inuence in this direction, due
to his polemical position towards the Gnostics.388
Other passages have a Christological context (frg. 15, 2733; SC 153,
pp. 220222): reference is to the obedience of Christ in his Passion, which
restores us to our friendship with God. Another key passage is when he
comments the parable of the vine dressers (frg. 19, 916; SC 100, p. 912):
the only salary for all the workers is Christ, who will come in his Parousia.
386
201.
387
388
A. Mhat, Apocatastase Origne, Clment dAlexandrie, Act. 3, 21, VigChr 10 (1956)

O. Siniscalco, P
. . ., p. 388.
88
chapter one
In a last passage, the reference is, as with Tatian, to the resurrection

of the esh (frg. 5, 114; SC 153, pp. 4446). In synthesis, there is a
properly Christian sense to both the verb and the substantiative, one
that is forming slowly, and that inuences Gregory.
5. The Condemnation
Once the amplitude of the question has been made known, it remains
to explain how it is possible that a man might not be saved, if the whole
human nature is destined to communion with the Trinity. The response
can come from the following Nyssian text, from the commentary of
Psalm 58 (59):
From these things we learn that there will be no destruction of men, so
that the work of God be not rendered vain and reduced to nothing; in
their place sin will be destroyed and reduced to that which is not. It says in
fact: The sin of their mouth and the discourse of their lipspride and execration
and lieswill not survive the anger of the end.389 And when thenceforth these
things will have disappeared, they will know, it says, that God is Lord of
Jacob and of the connes of the earth.390 In fact, evil not remaining in
any place, the Lord will be absolute sovereign of every conne, when sin,
which now reigns on most, will be removed. Then it retakes the discourse
on those who return at evening,391 hungry like dogs and wandering around
outside the city. I think with the repetition of the expression it reveals
that men even after this life will be in the one and the other condition,
that is in the same good and evil that they nd themselves now. For he
who now moves about around the city and does not live within it nor
conserves the human character of his own life, but having voluntarily
made himself a beast and become a dog, such a one, also then, will be
thrown out from the city of above and punished with the hunger for goods.
The vanquisher of adversaries, on the other hand, going from beginning to
beginningas the Psalmist says in another passage (Ps 83.7)and passing
from victory to victory, says: but I will sing your power, in the morning I will
exalt your grace [since you were my defence, my refuge (Ps 59.17), praise that is
your due forever and ever, Amen].392
389
390
391
Ps 59.1314.
Ps 59.14.
Ps 59.15, that repeats verse 7.
392
&
8 W A
1 ' C +
; 6
, h * ; !
6$ 9
B Q +
@ . ##8 8 1 #!
3 =
- ; * }
4
. $, +, 1 # $ 9
#
1. 7+ ) i/& q 0$ # 7R
.
W
, pC
, +, A
5 ; & @
/ M 1
$. & / $) 7#
+ , 6
1 & 5

, /
# 1 ##1 = &1 $. . #

nature and action
89
The passage is revealing since it is unequivocally speaking of the nal

victory of Christ and of the Parousia, and not of intermediary eschatology: the destroy not contained in the inscription itself is explained saying
that God will not annihilate the sinner in the last day. The heavenly
city is understood as authentic humanity and for this reason the refusal
of the divine image is read as a dehumanization. The contrast drawn
between the two movements successive to the nal victory is noteworthy:
those who have chosen to live as dogs will continue to turn around smitten by the hunger for goods, while he who will have known to conquer
temptations will advance linearly, immersing himself ever more in the
innite ocean of divine intimacy. The expression from beginning to beginning
corresponds in fact to the most propitious formulation of the Nyssian

, an eternal dynamism that will follow the nal victory, when
sin will have henceforth disappeared.393 The cyclical movement of the
damned is therefore, referred to that condition that will follow the nal
victory, when evil will have been already eliminated.394
Man at the end of his mortal life will have exhausted his capacity
to dene his own will, he will leave time and the historical moment to
enter into eternity. If he will have worked the good he will be in the
good, that is in the true movement of linear penetration into the innite
mystery of God; if he will have worked evil, then he will remain in evil,
and thus in the false movement of the circle without end, accompanied
; ; #

# $ 1
+ - F #

D #Q
9 * #
, &#1, .
, &
) / # $
#4i A
8 F < "
; ; ; !,
T E / $
, ! ! ) / $4
. 5 $) / &
8
#Q
1 *
#
&' ; C
/ -&
9 +#, ##)
&
)
$
{ " # M #
B 1 $ 1 # 4
. (InInsPs,
GNO V, 174, 22175, 25). The last phrase, included in parentheses, is omitted by ve
of the seven manuscripts cited by McDonough in the GNO.
393
Cfr. InCant, GNO VI, 247, 1214. In reference to
, see J. Danilou,
Platonisme et thologie mystique. Doctrine spirituelle de saint Grgoire de Nysse, Paris 1944, pp.
291307 and L.F. Mateo-Seco, Progresso o immutabilit nella visione beatica? Appunti dalla
storia della teologia, in M. HaukeM. Pagano (Ed.), Eternit e libert, Milan 1998, pp.
119140.
394
For Gregory there is an intimate correspondence between eschatology and mysticism: like beatitude in as much as eternal movement of immersion into the depths of
God corresponds to the Nyssian conception of mysticism of the shadows, so the eternal
false movement, which constitutes the possibility of damnation, corresponds to the false
movement of those who climb a mountain of sand, without being able to advance, since
their feet continually slip, not being planted upon the rock who is Christ (cfr. DeVitaMo,
II, 244).
90
chapter one
by the hunger for goods. The ontological connection between energeia, that is activity, and nature, once nature is realized in its temporal
dimension, will manifest itself in all its strength: each one will be that
which he has done, each will be as he has acted. For this reason, if a
man has followed Christ, through the actions of Christ, through the
imitation of his human activity, of his virtues and of his sentiments,
that man will be able to participate in the divine life. But if man will
have chosen to live as a beast, he will be in eternity that what he has
chosen, since he cannot be man if he has rejected he who is the model
of man, he who reveals man to man himself.395 The very context of
the passage permits to speak of the eternity of the condemnation,396 by
the spectacular destiny reserved to those who do not convert in respect
to those who have access to the
.
The same spectacular contrast is present in other works of Gregory,
such as the InCant, where the Nyssian opposes divinization to the lot
reserved to those who turn to idols: from men they become stones,397
since only in Baptism does one have access to authentic humanity.
This conclusion is conrmed also by the terms that Gregory uses
to describe the state of the damned, such as &

@ referred
to the punishment by re,398 a verb that, when used intransitively, can
only signify the extension that through and beyond all time, reaches
the eternal dimension, as well as "# 0&;, that is lamentation
without end.399 This last adjective is particularly revealing, since "#
is considered by Gregory as the equivalent of k&
and #,
which can signify nothing other than the most absolute eternity.400
395
It is this point that is not sufciently placed in the forefront by those who hold
the thesis of universal salvation in Gregory. For example, C. Tsirpanlis, who, even noting the positive aspect of Nyssian eschatology which passes through the imitatio Christi,
strongly criticizes the interpretation of J. Danilou, accusing him of incoherence: he
would have contradicted himself in saying that for the Nyssian all men are saved and
at the same time afrming that eternal condemnation will exist. But he takes no notice
of the afrmations of Gregory in InInsPs, nor of what Danilou wrote in 1970 (Cfr.
C. Tsirpanlis, The Concept of Universal Salvation in Saint Gregory of Nyssa, StPatr 17 (1982)
11391140).
396
R.E. Heine afrms that the passage contradicts the
as it is generally understood (cfr. R.E. Heine, Gregory of Nyssas Treatise on the Inscriptions of the Psalms,
Oxford 1995, p. 62).
397
Cfr. InCant, GNO VI, 147, 1114.
398
Cfr. DeBen, GNO IX, 100, 5.
399
Cfr. AdEosCast, GNO X/2, 328, 16. This could be a reference to the third book
of Maccabes (3, 4).
400
Cfr. DeBeat, GNO VII/2, 138, 1722. See also DeDeitEv, GNO IX, 341, 34.
For k&
, see P. Zemp, Die Grundlagen Heilsgeschichtlichen Denkens bei Gregor von Nyssa,
Mnchen 1970, pp. 1321.
nature and action
91
6. The Misunderstanding
The position of modern commentators that negate the possibility of
condemnation can be induced from a misunderstanding: the identication of the disappearance of death with eternal beatitude. They identify
universal salvation and universal resurrection. One cannot but be in agreement
with M. Ludlow in afrming that death is destined to disappear. But
one absolutely cannot sustain that every human being, at the end of
time, will necessarily participate in the divine intimacy. This would do
violence to Gregorys thought, who in no passage afrms something
similar. For him, the nal victory signies simply the destruction of
the power of sin and death, that is to say the universal resurrection.401
But he who has chosen to be without God, that is to not be a man,
will remain always in that condition. This is not an evil since a double
negation constitutes an afrmation: the evil one who says no to God
does nothing other than confess the goodness of God. Hell as such
cannot be considered an evil.402
Thus that Nyssian
, perhaps (9 )to use the same
expression as Gregory (cfr. De Vita Moysis, II, 82, 2; SC 1, p. 155)does
not lead to universal salvation; it seems more a consequence of the
afrmation that man was created by God for himself, in his image, in
the image of the Most Holy Trinity.403 Man was created to participate
in the dynamic of intra-Trinitarian love, by means of coordination.
401
A. Ojell writes well: La salvacin, en el pensamiento de Gregorio, es, a la vez,
universal y personal (A. Ojell, El telos escatolgico de la vida cristiana. La vida en Cristo
segn San Gregorio de Nisa, in C. Izquierdo et al. (eds), Escatologa y vida cristiana, XXII Simposio internacional de teologa de la Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona 2002, p. 372).
402
This observation can also illuminate the intricate question of the salvation of the
devil, which does not directly involve history, since the angels, although not eternal since
they have a beginning, do not have a history as man does. The afrmations of Gregory
in DeTrid, dated between 386 and 394, are quite interesting in this regard: he explains
that in the third day of Christ in the sepulcher, death itself is abolished ( $!
),
and with it those who are its ministers also disappear ( + @
) (GNO IX, 285,
2123). The same can be found in InSSal, GNO IX, 311, 820 which is like the epilogue
of the DeTrid (cfr. H.R. Drobner, Die drei Tage zwischen Tod und Auferstehung unseres Herrn
Jesus Christus, Leiden 1982, pp. 168170 and 190198). This seems to be quite a different doctrine than that found in DeAn, PG 46, 69C72B, in an initial phase of Nyssian
thought, another conrmation of the importance of diachronic study of the Gregorian
work. On the other hand the submission of the demons is an evangelical given, which is
essentially different than the conversion of the demons.
403
L.F. Mateo-Seco afrms: Pienso que lo ms personal de la apocatstasis nisena
radica precisamente en esto: no en la cuestin de si al nal todos los hombres se salvarn
o no, sino en la perfeccin con que el hombre es devueltoes restauradoal proyecto
original, a la primera gracia, a la primera creacin, a la inmortalidad (L.F. MateoSeco, La vida de Cristo en la Oratio catechetica magna, in J.R. Villar (ed.), Communio et
sacramentum, Pamplona 2003, p. 200).
92
chapter one
J. Danilou afrms: The apocatastasis in Gregory refers essentially

to the restoration of human nature in its original state, that is in its
real, natural state, that which God wanted for it and of which it was
deprived in consequence of sin.404 For this reason J. Danilou maintains
that
is only a synonym of resurrection, resurrection
understood as restoration of man in his original state.405
The isolated and autonomous individual of modernity does not
belong, then, to the project of God: more radically he is not man.
Instead we will only be truly and denitively men only in the 69 ,
that is in the Christic 69 . For this reason the
has a
sacramental dimension in time, which is an anticipation of eschatology,
through which we are made men more and more each day.
This dimension is clearly present in the OrCat. A.A. Mosshammer is
to be attributed the merit of having accentuated the importance of this
mature work of Gregory for the question at hand. In the OrCat, the
Nyssian explicitates the sense of
: he speaks of two kinds
of
, or, according to the words of A.A. Mosshammer, of
Two aspects of the
accomplished through the work
of Christ:406 for after having spoken once again of 3 - ; 9 !

,407 in the sense already mentioned of restoration to the
original image, Gregory explicitates the sacramental sense.408 He clearly
says that the resurrection will attain all men, but also that the state of
the resurrection will be different according to how they will have lived.
If they will have chosen to participate in the Sacraments, in Baptism
and in the life of grace, then they will have access to the blessed life.409
There is thus an
that is granted through the sacraments to the individual Christian and which constitutes the process by
which the universal
is achieved.410
404
Lapocatastase se rfre essentiellement chez Grgoire la restauration de la
nature humaine dans son tat originel, qui est son tat rel, naturel, celui que Dieu a
voulu pour elle et dont elle a t prive en consquence du pch ( J. Danilou, Ltre
et le temps . . ., p. 225).
405
406
A.A. Mosshammer, Historical time . . ., p. 88.
407
Cfr. OrCat, GNO III/4, 67, 910.
408
The term appears again in ibidem, 91, 12.
409
Ibidem, pp. 9091 passim.
410
A.A. Mosshammer, Historical time . . ., p. 88. For the connection between the death
of Christ, Baptism and the Eucharist in the OrCat, see L.F. Mateo-Seco, La teologa de la
muerte en la Oratio catechetica magna de San Gregorio de Nisa, ScrTh 1 (1969) 468471.
nature and action
93
In this way the

of the eighth day is no longer
something which occurs as an isolated event in that indivisible moment
at the boundary of time. It is rather the sum of all the individual

that occur within time.411
In synthesis, if one considers the whole of Gregorys thought and
analyzes it also diachronically, one can place another reading of Nyssian
eschatology next to that of M. Ludlow, one of a distinct sign, that contemplates the possibility of eternal condemnation and perhaps reects
better the complexity of the texts. The proposed reading does not wish
to suggest that Gregory negates the possibility that every man can be
saved, but only that he does not exclude the possibility that someone
could be damned. It would after all be improper to place the deduction
of universal salvation before the explicit afrmation of the possibility of
eternal damnation. This is all the more true when one considers that
the tradition, which recognizes in the Nyssian thought a fundamental
dogmatic contribution to the doctrine of purgatory, resolves any interpretive ambiguity.
Nyssian eschatology needs to be analyzed from the perspective of the
theology of the image and of the collocation of human nature, in its
essentially historical and social dimension, at the interior of the exitusreditus schema, where the origin and term coincide with the Trinity.
The possibility of condemnation is here a consequence of the refusal
on the part of man of his model, that is the refusal of Christ, with
whom he is called to identify himself through sacramental and mystical
. Condemnation is thus understood as dehumanization and
exclusion from participation in the divine intimacy, that is as the hunger
for goods, which consists precisely in the exclusion from participation but
not from the knowledge of the nal victory of Christ and not from the
submission of all things to him.
The misunderstandings in the reading of Nyssian eschatology appear
then due to a modern hermeneutic remeasuring of an Origenistic
leaning, and to a comprehension of the ontological profundity of
Gregorys gnoseology that is perhaps insufcient. It is necessary also to
recall the equivocal identication of universal salvation and universal
resurrection.
It appears that only starting from the exitus-reditus schema, which
places man with his historical life and his liberty between original
411
A.A. Mosshammer, Historical time . . ., p. 88.
94
chapter one
creation at the image of the Trinity and the denitive return through
Christ to the same Trinitarian intimacy, does it seem possible to resolve
the apparent internal conicts of the Nyssian thought while fully appreciating the theological profundityin both the Greek and modern sense
of the term.412 Just the true sense of human freedom is the core of
the present issue: some authors have tried to reduce the hermenutical
dilemma, stressing that liberty could be true only as liberty to choose
God; in that way, only universal salvation would make man authentically
free.413 But that would mean to accept that human liberty in history is
completely equivocal, against the clear assertions of the importance of
mans life and against the Nyssian participation theology. Conversely the
distinction of universal salvation and universal resurrection smoothly
resolves the dilemma.
This seems the ultimate sense of the Theology of universal nature
and of $
in Gregory. Thus Danilou can afrm that the resurrection is nothing other than the restoration of the primitive state, in
the sense that it is the accomplishment of Gods original design.414 This
divine project includes the salvation of all men and of all of creation.
Gregory manifests in his theology the ardent hope that this salvation
be accomplished and that the universal nature have a fundamental
role, since through it the resurrection is passed to all men,415 opening
to all the door of Heaven; but the liberty of each one comes into play,
in everyday life, in the activity realized according to the model, that is
according to the will of the Father in communion with the Spirit. Man
is created in the image of the Trinity to return, through the history into
which Christ enters and becomes man, to the Trinity itself.
412
For the relationship between the eschatological context and the proposition of
S. Coakleys research group, see G. Maspero, Lo schema dellexitus-reditus e lapocatastasi
in Gregorio di Nissa, Annales theologici 18 (2004) 85111.
413
Cfr. M. Ludlow, Universal Salvation . . ., p. 97.
414
La rsurrection nest rien dautre que la restauration de ltat primitif , au sens o
elle est laccomplissement du dessein originel de Dieu ( J. Danilou, Ltre et le temps . . .,
p. 205).
415
In this sense the afrmation of J. Zachhuber, that universal nature has no role at
all in Nyssian eschatology, is claried and attenuated.
CHAPTER TWO
APOPHATISM AND PERSON

I. Introduction
Apophatism is a particularly actual theme in the context of contemporary theology, in any confessional circle.
V. Lossky gave a strong impulse to the study of this theme with his
interesting book on the mystical theology of the oriental Church,1 in
which he sets apophatism as the dening characteristic of orthodoxy in
opposition to occidental intellectualism. It is a conception that privileges
experience2 and considers apophatism as a defence against the pride
of human reason. Dogma would thus have only a negative role and
its essential function would be that of antinomy.3
Nevertheless it is important to remember that there are different
conceptions of apophatism itself.4 It could be interesting to keep the
interpretation of Lossky present in the reading of the apophatic texts
of Gregory of Nyssa.5
V. Lossky, Thologie Mystique de lglise dOrient, Aubier 1944.

The theme of knowledge as experience and communion is developed in the article:
Y. Spiteris, La conoscenza esperienziale di Dio e la teologia nella prospettiva orientale, Anton. 72
(1997) 365426.
3
Lapophatisme nous apprend voir dans les dogmes de lglise avant tout un sens
ngatif, une dfense notre pense de suivre ses voies naturelles et de former des concepts qui remplaceraient les ralits spirituelles . . . Cest pourquoi les dogmes de lglise
se prsentent souvent la raison humaine sous la forme des antinomies dautant plus
insolubles que le mystre quils expriment est plus sublime. Il ne sagit pas de supprimer
lantinomie en adaptant le dogme notre entendement, mais de changer notre esprit,
pour que nous puissions parvenir la contemplation de la ralit qui se rvle nous, en
nous levant vers Dieu, en nous unissant Lui dans une mesure plus ou moins grande
(V. Lossky, o.c., p. 41).
4
It is enough to think of the originality and diversity of recent articles on the subject,
for example: M.P. Begzos, Apophaticism in the Theology of the Eastern Church: The Modern
Critical Function of a Traditional Theory, GOTR 41 (1996) 327357 or M. Ross, Apophatic
Prayer as a Theological Model: Seeking Coordinates in the Ineffable: Notes for a Quantum Theology,
JLT 7 (1993) 325353.
5
In Chapter I (see p. 31), it was seen that Gregory speaks properly only of the incomprehensibility and ineffability of the divine nature. Thus, in order to speak of apophatism
in Gregorian thought a theogical precision and clarication is required.
2
96
chapter two
A rst fundamental interpretation can be individuated that places

the apophatic realm between the immanence and the economy of the
Trinity. This could be called absolute apophatism. It is an attitude that
tends to refute the value of the analogy, and for this reason to undervalue the role of creation, of history and even of the Humanity of
Christ. One could speak of the divine Persons only in their economic
manifestations. Such a reading is quite agreeable to modernity, which
tends to reduce the mystery to its gnoseological dimension.
Nyssian apophatism is opposed to this conception of apophatism, at least
in the interpretation that is to be proposed here: the apophatic realm
is that between nature and Person. The divine nature is unknowable,
but the divine Persons are knowable, and we must speak of them. We
can and must speak of them since our existence is radically for love. The
reason of our existence is the love of the three divine Persons. But love
and knowledge are inseparable. Thus one can distinguish, in Nyssian
apophatism, a negative aspect, which negates the possibility of knowing
the divine nature, and a positive aspect, which afrms that the path to
God is through the Persons, and in particular through the Persons and
the mysteries of the life of Christ.
In fact the theme of unknowability of the divine nature is one of the
most treasured of the Nyssian, who with the other Cappadocians can
be dened as the initiator of the study of apophatism on the theological level. For this reason the number of texts that could be cited to
situate the AdAbl in the context of Gregorys work is immense. Thus we
will limit ourselves to the essential, presenting, without any pretext of
completeness, those texts that are fundamental in sketching a synthesis
in order to manifest the signicance of the AdAbl for this theme.
Certain authors have propitiously chosen as the key idea for interpretation of Nyssian apophatism, his conception of divine innity.6
Others have chosen to underline the connection of apophatism with
anthropology.7
Nyssian apophatism is to be presented here placing the accent on
the importance that Gregory attributes to its full Trinitarian dimension,
and thus to its Christological dimension. This last perspective should
represent, at least in the intention, the original contribution of this study.
6
For example: R.S. Brightman, Apophatic Theology and Divine Innity in St. Gregory of
Nyssa, GOTR 18 (1973) 97114.
7
See: J. Saward, Towards an Apophatic Anthropology, IThQ 41 (1974) 222234.
97
apophatism and person

Immanence
Absolute Apophatism

Economy
Nature
Nyssian Apophatism
Aspect

Persons
Aspect +
Fig. 1. Opposed interpretations of apophatism: indicates

radical separation
Gregory does not limit himself to only considering the incomprehensibility of the divine nature, which, at rst glance, constitutes the purely
negative aspect of apophatism. But in the AdAbl itself and in many other
works, Nyssian apophatism leads to the Person of Christ as the path to
accessing the Trinitarian intimacy. That is to say that apophatism has
an eminently positive dimension. In synthesis, apophatism will not be
considered only from the perspective of the common divine Nature,
but also from that of the three Persons, since it is by means of Christ
that, in the Holy Spirit, we have access to the Father.
The perspective that only accentuates the negative aspect of apophatism runs the risk of being swept up by polemics, reducing the discussion
to a dialectical perspective: apophatism would be a defence against the
philosophical excesses of the West. However, the apophatic dimension
does not enter into Christian Tradition following a dialectical confrontation or theological disputes. Rather, as Garrigues notes,8 it is the God
whom no one has ever seen, except the Only Begotten Son who is in
the bosom of the Father, who he has revealed him (
) in
Jn 1.18 which places the question in a Christological and Trinitarian
manner. Gregory, in the usual manner, is not caught up by polemics
but instead remains faithful to this Biblical perspective.
It was in fact the Eunomian crisis, characterized by the neo-Arian
refutation of the scandal of the manifestation of the Christian God,
8
Cfr. J. Garrigues, Thologie et Monarchie. Lentre dans le mystre du sein du Pre (Jn 1,18)
comme ligne directrice de la thologie apophatique dans la tradition orientale, Ist. 15 (1970) 439.
98
chapter two
that obliged the three great Cappadocians to develop the apophatic

dimension. In contemporary terminology, one could say that Eunomius
did not manage to accept or conceive of a perfect and all powerful
God that gives himself totally. He could not conceive of God as Father,
as pure source of being and love. He saw no other solution to explain
Christian salvation than the subordination of the Son and the Holy
Spirit. The problem is once again the relationship between immanence
and economy, aspects that the neo-Arian fractures on the theological
level, abandoning the possibility to know God in consequence of his
gnoseological theory with its Neoplatonic mark.
Eunomius identied in God, that is in the Father, essence and subsistence. The Cappadocians on the other hand, faithful to the Scriptural formulation, confessed the irreducibility of paternity to the divine
essence, refusing thus to separate the Father as personal principle of
the Trinity from the same as principle of the economy. It was Nazianzen who penetrated profoundly into the mystery of the Father, whose
greatness is not opposed to the possibility of self gift, as if it was a
human greatness lost when it is given. He concentrated on the theological aspect, showing how the Father is the Principle without Principle,
the
, who communicates totally his divinity to the Son
and the Spirit.
However once the theological aspect was articulated it was necessary
to return to the articulation of immanence and economy, which cannot
easily be separated.9 It would be the task of the Nyssianthe youngest
of the three Cappadociansto return, after the purication of apophatism in its principally negative aspect, to a synthetic vision of economy
and immanence. He can develop the mystery of the Son and the Spirit,
mediators in the missions, but equal to the Father from all eternity,
safeguarding in this way the realism of our divinization. The bishop of
Nyssa was able to reach such a high synthesis and such a great equilibrium, since, through the course of his life, he had to confront not only
the Eunomian heresy but also the Apollinarist crisis. It is thus precisely
thanks to his penetration of the mystery of Trinitarian immanence as
9
, ! ! ,
"
#
$#, ! , % &'! , ( ) * +
- !

* ./ -0 &'.
%, ,

# 1!

, .. 20
#

, 30, 2
4/! .
, 2 .

$

2. (Gregory Nazianzen, Oratio 29 De Filio 18,
1925; SC 250, p. 216).
99
of the mystery of the Incarnate Son of God, that apophatism reaches

its full stature, also showing the positive and afrmative component,
that is the Christological and soteriological one.
The chapter is thus organized in the following way:
Section I: Nyssian philosophy of language, with the relationship of
being-name and the afrmation of the priority of the rst over the
second.
Section II: The apophatic texts of the AdAbl, which manifest the
double dimension of Nyssian apophatism. A rst negative dimension
consists in the negation of the possibility to understand the nature.
The positive dimension refers instead to the mode of being of the
Persons.
Section III: Concentration on the negative aspect of apophatism and
explicitation of the meaning of the impossibility to understand the
divine nature, mainly through the analysis of CE II.
Section IV: Examination of the positive aspect of apophatism as an
afrmation of personal value.
Section V: Relationship of the positive aspect of apophatism with the
theology of names.
Conclusion: A brief synthesis of the results, to help in the understanding of the development of the general argument.
II. Names
a. Eunomius
One must rst of all reect on the relationship between language and
being. The Cappadocian fathers were driven to reection on the value
of the name by the polemics with Eunomius himself. He maintained that
the divine essence was understandable by human reason. Inspired by
Platonic inuences, he maintained that the names were revealed by God,
and that the name
unbegottenis the name that adequately
indicates the substance itself of the Father, the unique Creator.10 This
was a name that, in his opinion, applies only on the conceptual level11
10
The substance of the Father would thus coincide with being unbegotten, see CE
II, GNO I, 233, 1117.
11
For Basil and Gregory, 2
indicates either the rational human faculty, that
is the dynamic process of reection and analysis, or the content itself of thought,
100
chapter two
( 2
). He would evaluate the name generatedwhich
indicates the substance of the Son: the substance of the Father and of
the Son could not, then, coincide, since the names that indicate them
are distinct. The Spirit nally, would have no creative power, but would
only be the energy with which the Son produces the world. Thus, in
extreme synthesis, Eunomius negated the consubstantiality of the three
Persons,12 basing himself on a Neoplatonic and logicalistic theory of
their names.
Eunomius professed an identity between the ontological and gnoseological planes.13 Gregory reacts distinguishing:
It is not, in fact, the same thing to be said as to be.14
In fact, it is not to exist in unbegotten mode that derives from being called
unbegotten, but it is the being called that comes from being.15
The ontological level has priority. The names have not always existed,
since God alone is eternal. They belong to the world of creation, to
the - . The names do not precede man:
The use of words and names was discovered after the creation of men,
who were ordained by God with the logical capacity.16
b. The Names and God

At the same time, names are not only atus vocis.17 In a Neoplatonic
manner, Eunomius united the absolutization of the divine names with
the disdain for generic names and for created reality.
On the contrary, according to Gregory, the names are a human
invention, which is nevertheless possible through a divine gift: rational
nature. This is capable of entering into an analogical relationship
that is the concept. See E.C.E. Owen,

!, 2
and allied words, JTS 35 (1934)
368380.
12
Eunomius speaks of three distinct
"2, each one being simple, see CE I, GNO
I, 91, 20.
13
For the polemics on the question of the name between Eunomius and Gregory:
M.S. Troiano, I Cappadoci e la questione dellorigine dei nomi nella polemica contro Eunomio,
VetChr 17 (1980) 313346.
14
" " % * .. (CE II, GNO I, 271, 30).

15
"
5 67
* &- ! 2, ..8
5
% * 67
2 . (Ibidem, 272, 810).
16
9 + 6- ! :
- ! 7 + 3!
!2 + ; .
; -
5
5 !. (Ibidem, 272, 1921).
17
Cfr. ibidem, 238, 2730.
101
with reality, and permits man to express his own immanence and to
communicate:
The Creator of rational nature gave us discursive nature proportioned
(.

5 ) to the measure of nature, so that, with it, we would be
capable to express the movements ( ) of the soul.18
God has no need of names. When he creates he says let there be light,19
not let there be the name of light.20 Instead, language is an exclusively
human requirement and absolutely does not regard God.21 But, God
descends to our level and speaks to man because of love, since kenotically he places himself at the level of human nature and assumes, in
his theophanies, human aspect, words and sentiments. Here all of the
delicate piety and poetry of Gregory ows forth, when he afrms that
God is like:
a compassionate mother who, accompanying with a murmuring the
unintelligible cries of her children ('..<
), dispenses to
human nature that which she can understand.22
The image is extremely sweet and recalls those mothers who, with their
infant close to the breast, play and mimic the bah, bah of the little creature who in its blessed ignorance seeks the face of its mother. Thus the
names, the reason and all that is human assumes an incommensurable
value, since they are willed by God, not only in themselves, in creation,
but also for themselves, in the economy of salvation.
Eunomius was a dialectician and knew how to argue with all the
strength and malice of the logical arts. But at the same time, his attitude was based in a profound distrust in created reality. But Gregory
responds citing the existence of different languages, which would contradict the divine origin of names, and inserts everything in a profound
theologico-creational context:
It is the thing (=), not the name, that is brought forth by divine will
in such a way that the thing that is existing is the work of the power of
18
1 7 .
7 4/!
* .

5 7 4/! * .

9# 3 , > ? @
.. 8 "
5 7 ' 7 . (Ibidem,
294, 1820).
19
Gn 1, 3.
20
Cfr. CE II, GNO I, 305, 56.
21
M.S. Troiano, I Cappadoci e la questione . . ., pp. 322323.
22
A B.

#
+ 2! < '..<

5
; !20 4/ D .E# + @ (CE II, GNO I, 348,
2427).
102
chapter two
he who created; but words make us know existing things, and these, by
which reason (.
) makes known each thing in view of an exact and
unconfused indication, are the work and inventions (& ) of the
rational faculty. But both this faculty and rational nature are the work
of God. And since rational nature is present in all men, necessarily the
difference of names is observed in correspondence with the differences
of peoples.23
God creates things and man imposes names (Gn 2.20; 3.20). But the
names are not arbitrary. In fact, Gregory speaks of inventions (& ).
For the Nyssian it is God who gave to man the faculty and the rational
nature, so that he may know the reality that He created.
Thus, in the ancient polemics of the qualication of names as
either or 4/, that is as the arbitrary imposition by men or as
something given by nature itself or furnished by a supernatural source,
Eunomius opts for the second possibility.24 But his choice is collated to
a descending and subordinationist perspective, according to which God
attributes names to things in a mode that is not in conformity to their
nature. On the contrary Gregory afrms that the origin of the names
is human, and for this reason they are . But, as for the relationship between the name and the signied object, he afrms strongly
that it is according to the nature of things, that is 4/.25 Gregorys
philosophy of language is radically open.26 The Nyssian underscores
23
4/ #
E
/. =,
" F
G H * 8 & I
= 7
5

-! @
%, ! + F ! 4!-,
8 J 8 K
* E7 /
.2
5 1
.
, 5 7 .
7 -! @ & , " / .

/2 4/ @

5. * .
* = 3
, 2!
+ + 4
M + :
- ! 4
!
5 . (Ibidem, GNO
I, 298, 1019).
24
He admits however that proper names are given by men. Cfr. CEIII, GNO II,
178, 1315. Eunomiuss ambiguous and far from clear position is traced by Danilou to the Neoplatonic Iamblichus. Cfr. J. Danilou, Eunome larien et lexgse no-platonicienne du Cratyle, REG 69 (1956) 412432. Danilou denes Gregorys postion as
scientic, in comparison to that of Eunomius, said to be mystico-superstitious, and in
comparison to those that maintain a pure arbitrariety in the impostion of names, of the
sophistic-sceptical matrix. For Gregorys position in relation to superstition in general,
see the small treatise ConFa, recently published in a beautiful edition by M. Bandini
(cfr. M. Bandini, Gregorio di Nissa. Contro il fato, Bologna 2003), and the comments in
C. McCambley, Against Fate by Gregory of Nyssa, GOTR 37 (1992) 309332 and
E. Marotta, Lironia e altri schemi nel Contra Fatum di San Gregorio di Nissa, VetChr 4
(1967) 85105.
25
Cfr. A.A. Weiswurm, The nature of human knowledge according to Saint Gregory of Nyssa,
Washington 1952, pp. 117118.
26
Cfr. H. von Balthasar, Prsence et pense, Paris 1947, p. 62.
103
human liberty and creativity, without surpassing the limits of the creature, always unshakably anchored in a sound realism.27 Therefore the
names are invented by men, but according to the nature of things.28
Natural and supernatural domains are, in this way, distinct but not
separated. All the strength and clarity of the Nyssian view are based
upon the doctrine of creation, by which the world is good in so far as
it is the work of God.
c. Number
That which was afrmed of the names in general is also true in a specic
way for the names of numbers. This manifests all the modernity of the
Nyssian thought: he refutes the Neoplatonic position which attributed
to the number a metaphysical reality. The error of Eunomius is again
the identication of the order of nature and that of numbers.29 Instead
Gregory follows the genesis of the number back to reality.
Commenting the moment in which God divides the waters that are
above the rmament from those that are below (Gn 1.7), he afrms:
After the waters that we see and perceive were divided one from the other,
the heaven was placed as a separator of the double nature of the waters:
the heaven that is said to have come forth, along with the earth and all
those things placed at the foundation of the cosmos, and that received
thus its proper perfection and proper name in the manifestation of the
rmament, delimited thanks to the orbit of re. And the second circular
path of the light again obscured and illuminated in succession that which
was underneath. And also it received its name according to logical succession from above, and also it was a day. Thus in a necessary and consequent
way, also the nature of number entered into creation. In fact number is
nothing other than the composition of unity (
-! /). But all
that which is considered in a determined delimitation is called a unity.
Since, then, the cycle dened in itself is complete in all of its parts, the
narration rightly names as a unique thing the single period of the cycle,
saying: and there was an evening and a morning: the rst day (Gn 1.5).
And in its turn, in the same way, the other period is a unity. And placing
both of them together, they constitute the number two. And thus the narration follows the genesis of number back to the elements of creation,
indicating with number the ordered succession.30
27
For the value of sensible knowledge and its trustworthiness, see A.A. Weiswurm,
o.c., pp. 83104.
28
For the matrices and philosophical sources for Gregorys position, see M.S.
Troiano, I Cappadoci e la questione . . ., pp. 337346.
29
Cfr. CE II, GNO I, 201, 118.
30
N 2 O ...! P , - 13
/,
104
chapter two
Ontology has the priority: the logical and mathematical levels are a consequence, a reection.31 It is signicative that the number is born at the
same time as creation: number follows the being of things, of the diverse
created realities. Number is thus involved in the creational dynamics
and mode of being that is limited and changeable. As A. Penati has
noted,32 its origin is physical.
As much as is presented thus far, Gregorys thought is extremely
coherent and would seem to lead back to a theory of knowledge with
a properly realistic stamp. But the question as to how number is applied
to God emerges strongly, as he is by nature innite, unlimited and
eternal. The response of Nyssian thought is vigorous.
d. Passage to the Person
Gregorys discourse actually reaches sublime heights when turned to
God. The Nyssian afrms in reference to the names in general:
Perhaps we have not clearly learned that the names which signify that
which comes into being are successive to the things and that nominal
words are like the shadows of things, which receive form according to the
movements of that which subsists in hypostasis ( + &4 3 !)?33

Q
2 7 .7 + &- ! 4/! 1
"*, 1 ;
7 7 7 - ! + *
5
E. !
.
, .!2 :
; 2
5 3

5
7
7
5 * 1
, 9
5 4! * .
4
2, -.
* &
2

43 . R S
-

.E
5
.
2,
5
9. T2!
.
/! 9
5

5 4/ 7. ; 2. U" K *, $
-!
/. V= * !0 4; !
/
,
:
-< . N
W 1 /.

.. X 1<
G .+ 1 .
K
S 2
5 /.
2

, $3G N
X,
!Y 9
2G -. .. >/ ! K. Z 4 , /

2. [
P ! 1
.

5
5
#
2
7 2!,
.
2 7
-!
# :
5
5
/
. (ApHex, PG 44, 85BC).
31
After the crazy positivist program that characterized the end of the 20th century,
scientic research itself has reached the conclusion, based upon internal arguments,
of the impossibility to push formalism so far as to do without reality. The program of
Hilbert and Laplace entered into crisis, on the logico-formal side, from Gdels theorem, and on the physico-mechanical one, by the discovery of deterministic chaos (cfr.
F.T. Arecchi, I simboli e la realt, Milan 1990 and P. Musso, Filosoa del caos, Milan
1997).
32
Cfr. A. Penati Bernardini, La Trinit in Gregorio di Nissa, in P. Bettiolo
(Ed.), LEpistola dei di Evagrio Pontico. Temi, contesti, sviluppi, Atti del III Convegno del
Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la Tradizione Alessandrina, SEAug 72 (2000)
145152.
33
\8
" 4+ Q 2

# - M +
105
Words, using a physical analogy, express the dynamic, movement: this is

true for the movements of the soul, or, more in general, for the change
of every concrete being that exists. The rigorous yet poetic thought of
the Nyssian calls the names the shadows of things. Not shadows of
being in general, but shadows formed by the movement of being that
exists in a concrete subsistence, in a hypostasis.
In this way Gregorys theory of language prepares itself to move to
speak of God. In that which has been already said, one can speak of
the action of the divine Hypostases, of their action in time and of the
effects of their action. Thus one can count the divine Persons in their
manifestation in the limits of time.
At this point it would seem that the logical development of Nyssian
thought conrms those who, like V. Lossky, limit the possibility of
speaking of God to the economic sphere. Only energetic movement
would be accessible to human reason and language.
Nevertheless, Gregory does not stop here: that which he afrmed at
the diastematic level, that is on the creational level, where the mode
of being is historical, in as much as it coincides with becoming and
the mutation in being, the Nyssian now elevates to pure immanence.
Words, for him, cannot say being, but can say the mode of being,
even when it is outside of time. In this way, in God it is possible to
discern three distinct modes of being of the unique nature, together
with a correlational order. The logical passage has an incredible force:
time and eternity are not absolutely separated, nor are they radically
incompatible.
In this context, one can thus understand the importance of the
afrmations contained in the AdAbl.
III. The Ad Ablabium
It was already seen in Section II of Chapter I, dedicated to the energies, that the ineffability of the divine nature is one of the central
theses of Gregory in the AdAbl: the very name of God indicates his
action, not his nature. To created realities one can arbitrarily give
proper names, in order to distinguish one being from another in the
sphere of the same nature; but in the case of God it is different, since

!

2 H + - ! $ M 4!2, *
+ &4 3 ! <] (CE II, GNO I, 269, 1114).
106
chapter two
any of his names is interpretive of that which is thought of the divine

nature.34 The demonstration of the Nyssian is immediate:
In fact, even without any etymological research, we will nd that all the
other names given to creation were given casually to the subjects, since
it pleases us that things be indicated with their name, to avoid that the
knowledge of that which is indicated remain confused. Instead each of
the names that serves as guide (12) to know God has a proper signication enclosed in itself and among the names most worthy of God
would not be found any word deprived of some sense (); thus it is
demonstrated that it is not the divine nature itself to be indicated with
one of the names, but with that which is afrmed something of that
which regards it is made known.35
Thus, with each of the different divine attributes, such as vivier, incorruptible, or powerful, the different aspects of the divine nature are indicated,
but the nature itself cannot be expressed. The error of Eunomius
consisted in absolutizing the attribute of non generation, considering
it expressive and denitive of that which the nature is in itself. Thus,
he concludes:
So, also if we say vivifying, while we indicate by means of the appellative that
which is done [that is the action], with the word we do not make known
the being that does. According to the same reasoning, based upon the
signication enclosed in the words most worthy of God, we nd also that
all the other names either prohibit from knowing that which should not be
[known] regarding the divine nature, or they teach that which should be
[known], but they do not contain an explanation of the nature itself.36
So, since the divine names are conformed according to the different
activities, that is according to dynamics, it is easy to conclude that the
term derives from to see.
34
Cfr. AdAbl, GNO III/1, 42, 943, 2.
.
+ :
- !, Q 7 2! # , 2 *

.
2 P
? * E 4

# &

, 3 !
9+ 1!
5 - 7 8 " + 4!7 3 * * /

9# 2 + !! +. Q * 12 7 2
3 : , $2 @ K
. -

" ?
!

"2 P
4!
#

+ :
- !, >

/
2 " 2 4/ &
+ :
- ! +,
..- + " + .
! !2<. (Ibidem, 43, 415).
36
P ! ? <!

* ^!, D
# 7

2 - *

5
.
" !2. .. - * " * .
7
#
4!# 2 &2
, _ *
7 2 4/!
3
/
_ *
-
, " 7 7 4/! X2
"

. (Ibidem, 43, 2444, 6).
35
107
In Sections II and III of Chapter I, it was observed how the divine

activity enjoys a double connection, since it is effectuated according
to nature, for which reason from the activity one can return to the
nature to which it is inseparably attached, so much so that one can
prove the unity of the three Persons from the unity of action. But at
the same time, the activity is attached to the single Person, since each
of the divine Hypostases effectuates it in conformity to their proper
personal mode of being the unique divine nature. For this reason
the connection between immanence and economy is double as well:
at the level of the essence (connection activity-nature) and at the level
of the Persons (connection activity-hypostasis).
As for the afrmation of Gregory that the divine names are referred
to activity, it is to be viewed as an extremely positive conception of
Nyssian apophatism, and one could even say, with a play on words,
an active conception.
For, every negation of the possibility to comprehend the divine nature
with a name is translated into the afrmation of the necessity to think
of God as innite:
In fact, we, believing that the divine nature is indenable (
)
and incomprehensible (2.
), we do not manage to conceive of
it in any comprehension, but we afrm that in every way that nature is
considered in its inniteness ( 2`). That which is absolutely innite
(
) is not limited by one thing yet not another; but the inniteness
(2) escapes all delimitation ( * Q
). Thus, that which is beyond
delimitation is absolutely not limited, not even by a name.37
The innite cannot be closed or enumerated in a concept, and properly

in this negationin this limit of the mind and knowledgeis found the
possibility to think of God in inniteness ( 2`). Once again it can
be seen as a step beyond classical Greek thought, which saw perfection
in the nite. Thus the Hellenic world transferred its concept of divine
perfection to man, proposing in culture, in sport and art the model of
perfect proportion. In a similar way Gregory transfers the divine innity
37
9#
2.
2 4/ % /

"2 " 7
5 2.', .. -

2`
#
4/
<. * .

" 12< ,
" 2G ..
- .
4/ * Q
9 2.
"
5 * * Q

" :
- ! 12< . > ?
W
7 2 4/!
5
2
9 @
, &
= F
- 4 % * #
, 9 a + :
- ! 2.
"
5
" /
* " * F
% & = F
%
2<. (Ibidem, 52, 1553, 3).
108
chapter two
to the model of human perfection, since man, surpassing the limits of

concepts, can and must think of God in inniteness.38
Gregory once again does not fear to explain the ineffability of the
divine innity, having recourse to the contrast with the delimited created nature.
In fact, only those realities that are considered according to a proper
delimitation (4) are numbered by addition ( /). And
delimitation is found in the corporeal aspect, in size, in place and in the
difference relative to the form and colour; and that which is considered
outside of this, escapes delimitation by means of such properties. Now,
that which is not delimited is not enumerated and which is not enumerated
cannot be considered in a multiplicity. For we afrm that also gold, even
though split into many types of money, is unique and is said unique; and
we speak of many pieces of money and of many staters, without nding
any multiplication in the nature of gold in the multiplicity of staters.39
As man, gold is a name of nature, for which reason it would be against

strict logical rigour to speak of many golds, as it is to speak of many
men. Thus Sacred Scripture is not preoccupied in speaking of men in
the plural, since the imprecision is not dangerous for the faith and no
one thinks of a multiplicity of human natures. Instead it always refers
to God in the singular, to avoid any danger of confusion and any possibility of thinking of a multiplicity of divine natures:
In fact, if in the Holy Trinity the nature were different, as those who are
in error suppose, by logical consequence the number would dilate into
a plurality of gods, following the division of the diverse essence of the
subjects. But, since the divine Nature, simple and immutable, rejects all
diversity of essence while it is unique, it does not admit by its very self
an indication of plurality. But, as one speaks of a unique nature, thus
all the other names are also expressed in the singular: God, good, holy,
Saviour, just, Judge and whatever other name that we think applies to
38
For this aspect, see Gregorys conception of spiritual theology, particularly the
mysticism of the shadows (cfr. J. Danilou, Mystique de la tnbre chez Grgoire de Nysse,
under Contemplation, in DSp II/2, cc. 18721885).
39
/ # , Q 8 $2 4 !# G 9
4 42` 3

; 4
b ; *
7 + .E- G * @!
/ ! !
/
4/
+

/ ! 4. D -4
" # , *
/

. !7
" / . * 4, ? $
..
)
2< /
, K % .G
..
2
..
)
7 :
-<
,
" 7 4/!
5
5 .
* . +
! &2
. (AdAbl, GNO III/1, 53, 919).
109
God; and if one says that such a name regards the nature or the activity,
for us it is indifferent.40
Gregorys thought does not stop here. After afrming the unity of God,
he moves on to establish the Trinity of Persons. The discourse moves
from being to mode of being. The Nyssian afrms:
It is rst necessary that we believe something is (%2 ), and only then
do we interrogate how that in which we have believed is (+ ). Different, then, is it to say what it is ( 2 ) from saying how it is (+
). So, saying that something is without generation, one exposes how
it is, but, with those words, one does not express what it is as well. And,
in fact, if you asked a farmer about a tree whether it was planted or if it
grew on its own, and he responded either that the tree was not planted or
that it came from a seedling, did he perhaps with the response explain the
nature to you? Or instead, saying only how it is, did he not leave obscure
and unexplained the discourse on the nature? So, also here, in learning
that He is without generation, have we learned to think as is tting that
He is, but we have not understood through the word that what He is.41
The context of the passage is personal distinction, as will be seen in the

next chapter, and Gregory differentiates the level of the essence from
that of the Person. This is possible since the primacy is of faith, in
which we attain the true reality, that is Being, God. Only after having
believed that God is can we speak of how he is. That is true also on
the level of natural knowledge, because the base of human knowledge
is also faith in experience, in the fact that things are and exist, that for
40
$ ..
+ c ! &
7 d2 -
9
4/,
.
/! ? $ .7
+ 1 * . /
, ; X 7
"2
+ &
!
/
. = !# 8
"2 X
9 2 d.7 ..
2!
4/, K! ? 2 e, .
2 48
X 7
"
2 . ..8 H 2 . 4/,
P ! .. - X+
:
-< , , , f
, ! , 2
, , ^ ..
+
+
:
- !
# , D ^ * 4/ ^ * E. .,
"
.
(Ibidem, 55, 1020).
41

9= %2 / -, + *

-G ..

W 1
5 2 ..
1
5 + .
. *
W
! %2 ., + &
2 , 2 ; 4!; / 0
"
2 . $
* c3 * !, ^ 4 *
^ "
- ! 2, 1 2
_ 4/
% *
_ 4 2

, \ 4/ 7
2! 2
1
* + $g _
.

* 7 4/! . .
]
P ! 5

Q! " * %

# - , Q, 7 4!7
" c
/. (Ibidem, 56, 1757, 4).
110
chapter two
this reason, we can know them.42 Gregory, due to his profound openness to being, does not fear to illustrate the most pure intra-Trinitarian
immanence with an example taken from the life of the elds, inspired
by the good sense of a farmer. Therefore the Nyssian, in his very act
of negating the possibility to express the divine nature with language,
afrms the possibility to investigate the mode of being of the Persons
and attests to the value of human knowledge and science. Once again:
only in the humble openness to the supernatural can one found an
authentic love for the natural, and can one recognize the great value
of human science.
Thus apophatism must be approached from a fully Trinitarian perspective: from the point of view of the unique nature one can deduce
the principally negative aspect, but this negation is an openness to the
innite, which permits to properly approach the question from the point
of view of the Persons. In the point of view of the Persons, one can
discern the eminently positive aspect of apophatism, which reaches its
culmination in its Christological aspect. As always it is impossible to
separate, in the study of any theological question, the Trinitarian aspect
from the Christological one, which are like two sides of the same and
unique divine mystery.
Therefore it is rst necessary to develop the negative aspect of
apophatism, to next develop the positive one. In the next section then,
apophatism considered as limit to the excessive pretexts of human
reason will be analyzed briey, with attention principally focused on
the CE. The central concept here will be that of nature. After this
pars destruens we will be able to move on to the positive part, which is
founded on the concept of Person. For this reason, moving to the pars
construens, it will be necessary to briey sketch the history of the notion,
thus manifesting the central role played by the Nyssian and the other
Cappadocians in its constitution. The
.
2 of the discourse
will thus naturally focus on the study of the Christological aspect of
apophatism, the true foundation of its positive value.
42
The happy formula of B. Salmona is in this vein: Il linguaggio nasce ontologico
(B. SalmonaS. Depaoli, Il linguaggio nella patristica: Gregorio di Nissa e Agostino, Genova
1995, p. 9).
111
IV. Eunomius, Nature and Excess

Gregory is extremely clear in his afrmations. He does not negate the
value of reasoning about God, but afrms the radical impossibility to
express, as Eunomius suggested, that which the nature is in itself:
Thus, this concept was explained by the master, thanks to which it is
possible that those who have not been obscured by the veil of heresy
can clearly discer that the divine, as for that which regards the nature,
is unfathomable (4
) and unconceivable (
) and
superior to every understanding based in reasonings. But the human
mind, engaging itself in inquiry and research, as far as is possible for
reasonings, extends and reaches to touch (
-)43 the
inaccessible and sublime nature. It has not such an acute sight as to see
the invisible clearly, nor is it absolutely excluded from every possibility
of approximation, in such a manner as to not be able to reach any
representation ($2) of that which is searched out. But on the one
hand, it conjectures (
-
) something of that which is searched
out through contact (47) of reasonings, and on the other, it has
knowledge of that which is searched out in a certain way ( )
by the very fact of being unable to contemplate it ( #), forming so
to say a clear knowledge (+) of the fact that that which is sought
is above every knowledge (+). In fact the human mind knows what
contradicts the divine nature and is not ignorant of that which is tting
to conjecture (&

#) in its regard, but it cannot discern ( #) what
that same [nature] might be about which it develops its reasonings. But,
based upon the knowledge of that which is proper (
!) to it and
that which is not proper to it, it sees only that which is possible to see,
i.e. that that which is as much as fundamentally far from every evil and
is considered in every good is absolutely such, so as to be inexpressible
in words (
) and inaccessible (2E
) to reasonings.44
43
As in a contest where he who touches rst wins.
/
2 7
2
5 -.
!, 8 h @
)
.
M
./ 4+ i# Q * #
, Q! ?
4/ @ 0, 4
- .'! 7 +
.
+ &'.
, 9 !2 -

.

5 !
8 J ? e * .
+
- 7
.-
&'.7
4/!,
B

5
:!
5 > + $# *

B -

7
2! > 2 /
5 <

.E#
$2. .. *
5 <

7 + .
+ 47
-
, *
" / #
,
j + 7 *
& = + * <
/
%
. - 42

2 4/ Q " &

#
" c,
" "
2 k l 5 .
2< # c, ..8 7 +
!

! 3! %, D
:47 , Q * *

5 ! M
,
/
- !

5
j

.
% .

# 2E
. (CE II, GNO I, 265, 23266, 14).
44
112
chapter two
The value of human conjecture and reasoning cannot be negated. It is

important however that reason be not overwhelmed by the temptation
to express the inexpressible. The mind can come close as to touch the
divine (
-), but it will never be able to understand
it, to embrace and exhaust it in its comprehension. It is precisely in
this discovery that one has access to the highest knowledge: that of the
innity and inaccessibility of the divine nature.
This is not limited to the source of being, but is true for every
being that participates in being itself. Gregory, after having reafrmed
the incomprehensibility of the divine nature, inaccessible to even the
angels, afrms:
And as, when looking up to heaven, and in a measure apprehending by
the visual organs the beauty of the heights of heaven, we doubt not the
existence of what we see, but if asked what it is, we are unable to dene
its nature, but we simply admire as we contemplate the overarching vault,
the reverse planetary motion, the so-called Zodiac graven obliquely on
the pole, whereby astronomers observe the motion of bodies revolving
in an opposite direction, the differences of luminaries according to their
magnitude, and the specialties of their rays, their risings and settings
that take place according to the circling year ever at the same seasons
undeviatingly, the conjunctions of planets, the courses of those that pass
below, the eclipses of those that are above, the adumbrations of the earth,
the reappearance of eclipsed bodies, the moons multiform changes, the
motion of the sun midway within the poles, and how, lled with his own
light, and crowned with his encircling beams, and embracing all things in
his sovereign light, he himself also at times suffers eclipse (the disc of the
moon, as they say, passing before him), and how, by the will of him who
has so ordained, ever running his own particular course, he accomplishes
his appointed orbit and progress, opening out the four seasons of the
year in succession; we, as I say, when we contemplate these phenomena
by the aid of sight, are in no doubt of their existence, though we are as
far from comprehending their essential nature as if sight had not given
us any glimpse whatever of what we have seen; in the same way, with
regard to the Creator of the world, we know that he exists, but we cannot
deny that we are ignorant of the denition of his essence.45
45
H *
"* 1+
+ 1 + $ 2!

5 * P'
4
-..
% * 4

" 4E-..
,
* 2 ! 5 . 4/
" @
, -<

/.

5 * 1+ 4
+ . +

* @. 2 /.
* .
<
4
*
.
*
., m 2 + * 2
.
!

5
M 5
4
2, 4! ! 4
-
+ "+ $
.- / /.

5 @
2

113
Gregory demonstrates once again his interest for science and his
admiration for the beauty of the created world. His rened ontological
sensibility leads him to afrm, for created beings, a type of participated
apophatism. The essence of the creature is also beyond the scope of
the human intellect. The substance has an ontological profundity that
renders it radically inexpressible and in-comprehensible, not in the sense
that one cannot know anything of it, but in the sense that it cannot be
totally understood, it cannot be reduced to the limits of the intellect
or concepts.
In CE II, 261, Gregory comments the passage Great is the Lord and all
powerful, his wisdom has no limits (Ps 147.5), afrming that the universe is
too small to contain the explanations of the works of the Lord. And if
this is true for creation, the Nyssian asks: how many universes would
we need to contain the explanations about the God of the universe
himself ?46
Man spends his life in ignorance of all things, without knowing
himself, nor any of the rest of things. In fact no one can say he understands his own soul, knows his own substance.47 Not only is the soul
+ " + +

E- !,
+ .!!
&

+ &
EE ! .2' + &! 7
-

- + . !
.7 7 . ..
2!
5
9.2

5
+ .! 2, > -.! n
5 $2
4! *
# # /. 4 - ; 4! ; -

@ Q " * .2,
5 .2
3
H 4

5
,
> * E
/.
5 -
* ^

/!
/
7

&
E-!,
5 @
H X #
.2!, 5 1+ % 4 8 J 1+
" 4E-..
,
"2 .
X-
+ F !

5

7, Q
$
; $ * 4 !2G
P ! *

5
Q
@
^, * 7
"2 .

#
"
/. (CE II, GNO I, 247,
4248, 3).
46
- 1 *
42`
2, Q
9
5
5
42
" @
(p7 ! "
5, 42,
" @ ), 1
# $2

" ! X 7
2

42 * .
. $
W 1
Q.

.- ! _ H .2 + @!
5 2
!7,

!

5
5 + Q.! ] (CE II, GNO I, 261, 2229).
47
Q
2` - ! -
+
X
)
5
M !
, @
.. - . 2 @ D 7 $2 X
5 ' 7 .' ,
2 1
) " 7
"2 . . . (CE II, GNO I, 257, 28258, 3). In Chapter 11 of
the DeHom, entirely dedicated to the incomprehensibility of the human mind, Gregory,
commenting Rm 11.34, throws back at those who afrm the comprehensibility of divine
nature that they cannot even say to know themselves, since they do not even know the
nature of their own intelligence. This property is considered part of the likeness of the
image: if one could understand the nature of the image, while the nature of the archetype remained incomprehensible, that would mean that the image is decient as image
114
chapter two
incomprehensible, but the body and esh itself escape mans capacity
of analysis.48
For created realities, as for divine realities, it is useless to seek to
understand the substance which in its ontological profundity escapes
knowledge in its incomprehensibility. For this Gregory afrms, returning
to the poetic image of children, that:
If, then, the lower creation49 which comes under our organs of sense
transcends human knowledge, how can he, who by his mere will made the
worlds, be within the range of our apprehension? Surely this is vanity, and
lying madness,50 as the Prophet says, to think it possible to comprehend
(2
) the things which are incomprehensible ( + . !). So
may we see tiny children,51 by ignorance due to their age ( 7 9.2

), busying themselves in their play. For often, when a sunbeam
( #
9.7) streams down upon them through a window, delighted
with its beauty they throw themselves on what they see, and are eager
to catch the sunbeam in their hands, and struggle with one another, and
grasp the light in the clutch of their ngers, and fancy they have imprisoned the ray in them, but presently when they unclasp their hands and
nd that the sunbeam which they held has slipped through their ngers,
they laugh and clap their hands. In like manner the children52 of our
generation, as says the parable,53 sit playing in the market-places; for,
seeing the power of God shining in upon their souls through the dispensations of his providence, and the wonders of his creation like a warm ray
emanating from the natural sun, they marvel not at the divine gift, nor
adore him known through these things ( *
/ !
/
), but
passing beyond the limits of the souls capabilities, they seek with their
sophistical understanding to grasp that which is intangible, and think by
their reasonings to lay hold of what they are persuaded of, if they [truly]
are persuaded; but when their argument unfolds itself and discloses the
(Cfr. DeHom, PG 44, 153D156B). One can see here the evolution of Gregorys thought,
who in this work, that belongs to his rst period, perhaps is still marked by Origenistic
intellectualism, while in the CE II he extends the property of incomprehensibility also
to the human body, and even to all of creation.
48
[ 2 7 ' 7 .!] ..8
" 7 * " 7 * !

# .'
5 5
. -
. * 4
$ J / ./0 '.3 +

!
48 X
5
7 4.
0 * &
2
, 2 .4 ; !2`,
"

+. (CE II, GNO I, 259, 2631).
49
For a synthetic vision of the hierarchy of being in Gregory, see D. Bals, Metousia
theou: mans participation in Gods perfection according to St. Gregory, Rome 1966, pp. 5052.
50
Cfr. Ps 40.5 (LXX).
51
Literally , that is children who do not yet speak.
52
Here we nd 2, that is grown children, that can speak and say foolish things,
as Eunomius.
53
Cfr. Mt 11.16.
115
tangled web of their sophistries, men of discernment see at once that

what they have apprehended is nothing at all.54
We are before a magisterial and magnicent interweaving of moving

poetry and sharp irony. One can note the elegant play on words between
the age (9.2) and the sunbeam ( #
9.7).
One can know God in his manifestations, in the beauty of creation,
in the owering of grace in souls, but one cannot arrogantly think to
exhaust knowledge of his essence. The error is to claim to reach everything with ones own mind. From this come errors and heresies:
For, in the unduly curious search (
.
#) is found space for
the false reasoning, but avoiding every type of unduly curious search one
eliminates, at the same time, also the necessity to err.55
The search is not evil in itself, the problem is rather the arrogance of
man and his excess, to wish to make his own that which in no way can
be possessed and reduced to conceptual schemas. One can know being,
but one cannot close it into the cages of our ideas. Thus, returning to the
problem of the divine names and human names, Gregory explains:
Therefore, if we have learned some name to manifest the knowledge
of God, they are all common names and analogous in respect to those
names (
!2 @ .
2 *
5 + :
- !) that
indicate the properties of man. For those who wish to present, thanks to
54
r$
W 9 - ! 2 9 + $ 2! + 9 ! 4-
&
7 !2 3!, + 1 . * = -
*
7 9 .'!] 5 2 ', 3 4
1
4 , *
^ %2 + . ! 2
.
P ! @
$# 7 9.2
2<
- 1
5
-<
.

..- #
9.7 2
"
# $2 -..
* * 4
( 4 4.
# * # -
* ... -
5 4! , ; E
.; + /.!, >
^ ,
" -G .. .2 + /.! 7 .
7 .!
#

# 2

# + + 9 7 #
.E.
P ! 7
9 = 2, 3 4 9 E
., #
# 2<G
M 2 / + 7

2 .! + ; 2 - !
# ' # ..-
E.

j
#- 7 9.7

4/!
" -<
-

5 *
/ !

/
, ..8 &E- * ! * ; ' ; # +
4- ! .E#
5
4
5 -
#
^
+ ..
+, ^
^
G

5 .
/
+
4- ! .
&2

#
5 @
* .

". (CE II, GNO I, 250, 328).
55

.
# 1 .
* 3 &2, -

.
/
/
- ! 9
5 - -.
(Ibidem, 255, 1417).
116
chapter two
distinctive signs, he who is unknown say that he is of noble birth, if this is
the case, of a good family, or that he is famous for richness and admired
by all for his dignity, owering with youth and of distinctive body; and
nevertheless, saying such things, they do not manifest the nature of he
who is presented, but [only] some distinctive signs that are known about
himfor human nature does not consist in being of a good family, nor
in possessing many riches, nor in being honoured and admired by all
for age, but each one of these properties is observed in relation to that
man. Thus, also all the words found in Sacred Scripture for divine praise
indicate something of all those that are manifested in Gods regard, since
each one offers a particular aspect. And through these words we learn that
God is powerful and does not admit any inferiority, that he is uncaused
and cannot be circumscribed inside any limits, that he has power over all,
or in general, something that regards him. But as for the essence itself, in
as much as it is unintelligible to a mind and unspeakable in any words,
Scripture did not permit that it undergo an unduly curious search and
prescribed that it be honored with silence, prohibiting the search of that
which is too profound (Cfr. Sir 3, 21) and afrming that one must not
speak out words in the face of God (Eccles 5.1; LXX).56
Thus it is the Scripture that prohibits the unduly curious search on

God: one can interrogate as to how he is, and can use different names
to describe his mode of being. But the essence remains always beyond
the scope of the mind and of words. This is true when thinking of
both God and man.
Instructed by this admonition, it is possible to move on to the positive aspect of apophatism, starting with a brief account of the birth
of the concept of person.
56
$ - * .! 7 2
! F
, - 5

!2 @ .
2 *
5 + :
- !, s
5 * 3

$ 2. >
M *
/
- ! !- ! .
5
" 2 " , ?
P ! / 0, + W
! .
% .*
.
/ 2` 2E.

5 - ; H`

3 ,
5 .

" 4/
5 .

, ..- !2
+ " * !
! .! (
B * "
B *
.

B * 4
5 3

B * H 2E.
9 !
2, ..8K

/ ! * !# )G
P ! = 4! M
7 d2 47 $

.
2 2 + * .
!

2
, $2 @4 X-
, 8 J _ * * _ *
5
2

2
_ * $ 2 % _ * $ 4 .
@ _
* - ! @ * -
_ Q.! + " * G "
"2 >
B
2` !
B . 4
.
^,
!; =
!./ + E ! <

. # # 67 *
3

5. (Ibidem, 257, 225).
117
V. The Concept of Person

The concept of person is the fruit of a slow coalescing of a double
source: properly Christian elaboration and Semitic categories. J. Danilou sketched out, with the brevity and profundity of a great master, the
development of this key concept.57 It moves on three levels: Trinitarian,
Christological and anthropological. This last aspect is characterized
by a certain ambiguity, due to the prevalent juridical use of the term,
referring to the subject of law and to the juridical person. Thus, in
a rst moment, person was avoided in the Latin world in reference to
human nature, the preferred term was at this time conditio.
For the newness of the Christian event implied the absence of concepts adapted to express it in all of its profundity. Thus men of faith,
right from the beginningin Mary from the moment of the Annunciation, have had to start meditating, seeking and creating concepts
to express the marvels of the Lord.
In the Trinitarian sphere, the rst outline of the personal notion
can be found in the term 4: the primordial conception of
the divinity had necessarily to be an impersonal innity, and was thus
expressed in negative terms. Thus the term 2
was born,
that is that which cannot be circumscribed.
According to Justin,58 this term is exclusive to the Father. On the
other hand the whole nature of the Word is such to give it the possibility of manifestation. The second person would thus be eternal like
the rst, but generated and proffered, in view of creation, by the rst.
The Word would thus receive a proper subsistence, dened by Clement
of Alexandria as 4, becoming Son in his limitedness (
4), and not by essence (
"2).59 The eternal generation
appears in this case as a mediating act by which the innite nature, but
not the essence,60 limits itself in such a manner to be able to enter into
57
Cfr. J. Danilou, La notion de personne chez les Pres grecs, Bulletin des Amis du Card.
Danilou 19 (1983) 310.
58
Cfr. Giustino, Dialogus cum Tryphone 127; PTS 47 (Marcovich), p. 291.
59
K 1 u

,
"
2
!

,
.. T ; 1 " u
, 4
" 8
"2

[1] xM. (Clement of Alexandria, Excerpta ex Theodoto 19, 1; F. Sagnard,
Clment DAlexandrie. Extraits de Thodote, SC 23, p. 92).
60
This distinction is particularly interesting for the history of dogma and for the
understanding of the relationship between essence and nature, which, as we will see, is
a pertinent point (cfr. n. 147) and would merit further study.
118
chapter two
dialogue, communication with creation. Thus 4 is a synonym

with person, but in as much as limitation, with a negative connotation. Person thus appears to necessarily imply a limitation61 and, for
this reason, is a concept that remains inapplicable to the primordial
divinity. The unsettling result is that, according to the most primitive
Trinitarian theology, the Father could not be called a person, only the
Son was such. Justin afrmed that the Father does not have a name,
while in the Gospel of the Truth of the Nag Hammadi it is said that
the Son is the name of the Father.62 In this way name is equivalent
to person, that means the Son is the person of the Father. In fact, in
Hebrew the word shem, that is name, is the privileged term to designate
God who manifests himself.
It is in this context that the term !
enters into play: the
Word becomes the face of the ineffable and incommunicable Father
( * !

5 * 2
+ Q.!).63 The !

becomes the face of God. A certain incompatibility between limitation
and innite can still be found: how the innite can be personal is not
yet perceived.
However the Christian perception is continually faced with the tension of this afrmation and the perfect divinity of the Son, identical
to that of the Father. Origen already places the problem in evidence.
But it is not until the 4th century that we will see, that, to exit out of
this stalemate, a theology of the Trinity starts to be developed which
would disassociate the concept of person, that is to say the concrete
subsisting individual, from that of limitation, whilst afrming, in a
manner paradoxical to all the anterior forms of thought, that it is not
61
La personne apparat donc impliquer ncessairement une limitation ( J. Danilou, La notion . . ., p. 5). In this sense the post Hegelian criticism of K. Barth to the concept of person, in as much as limitation (cfr. K. Barth, Dogmatique, I, 1, 2, Geneva 1953,
p. 51), is separated from the terminological development of this word and is equivalent
to a return to the pre-Cappadocian state. For the difculty of the concept of person in
the history of dogma, see: J. Ratzinger, Il signicato di persona in teologia, in Idem, Dogma e
predicazione, Brescia 1974, pp. 173189; F. Bourassa, Personne et conscience en thologie trinitaire, Gr. 55 (1974) 471493; 677720; P.A. Sequeri, La nozione di persona nella sistematica
trinitaria, Teol(M) 10 (1985) 2339; A. Staglian, Il mistero del Dio vivente, Bologna 1996,
pp. 565572.
62
Cfr. J. Danilou, La notion . . ., p. 6.
63
1 * + Q.! 3
" &2 G
"
-
7 /! "
5. 1 .
"
5, 8
y -
2,
/ n
42 "
5, .E-! * !

5 * 2
+
Q.!,
y

$ * -

3
5
5 >2. T-.
(Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum, II, 22; PTS 43/44 (Marcovich), p. 70, 56).
119
contradictory for the innite to be at the same time personal.64 This

brings about a true and proper revolution in the history of thought,
since in one move the path is opened to the recognition of the person
as a pure value.
From the historical point of view, L. Turcescus essay demonstrates
the originality of Gregory of Nyssas concept of person, along with
his capability to avail himself of the philosophical data of his age.
L. Turcescu conclusion is: Although some rudimentary concepts of
the individual existed in antiquity that Gregory likely used, a more
developed notion of person did not exist prior to the Cappadocian
fathers.65
The relationship between economy and immanence is also central
here. Tertullian, for example, tended to identify with the typically Latin
practicalness, the persona with the economic dimension and the substantia
with the immanent one.66 Origen is to be credited with using person
to speak of immanence, in as much for the rst time he used the term
& in the Trinitarian realm,67 that is in the properly theological
realm. His limits are a certain subordinationism and the idea that the
cosmos itself exists ab aeterno.68
The Cappadocian formula of 2
"2, # &
- allows
a real step forward.69 Gregory for example, distinguishes that which
is common ( *
) in the Trinity,70 that is the
"2, from that
which is proper ( * ^
), that is the & ,71 thus founding the
64
Mais ce nest quau IVe sicle que nous verrons, pour sortir de cette impasse,
commencer slaborer une thologie de la Trinit, o lon dissociera le concept de
personne, cest--dire de lindividu concret subsistant, de celui de limitation, et o lon
afrmera, dune manire paradoxale par rapport toutes les pentes de la pense antrieure, quil nest pas contradictoire que linni puisse tre en mme temps personnel
( J. Danilou, La notion . . ., p. 7).
65
L. Turcescu, Gregory of Nyssa and the Concept of Divine Persons, Oxford 2005, p. 115.
66
Cfr. A. Milano, La Trinit dei teologi e dei loso. Lintelligenza della persona di Dio, Napoli
1987, pp. 2122.
67
Hippolytus will be the rst to use !
for the Trinity.
68
Cfr. A. Milano, La Trinit dei teologi . . ., p. 26.
69
On Basils role, see A. Milano, Persona in teologia, Rome 1996, pp. 117125. For
Nyssian terminology: L. Turcescu, The Concept of Divine Persons in Gregory of Nyssas To
His Brother Peter, on the Difference Between Ousia and Hypostasis, GOTR 42 (1997) 6382.
70
..8 H
"2 1 ,
"2 1 M,
"2 * f
5
" #
"2,
P ! * 1 , * 1 M, * * 5 * f

" #
2.
j * 1 " , 2
"2 9 " , $ . K
+

3!
/
. (AdGraec, GNO III/1, 20, 2421, 1).
71
# &
- 1
.

5 2 , 2 / 2
. 9= $ + .
" @!
5
7 .2 42G .
-. (AdEust,
120
chapter two
fundamental distinction between description (&

4) of that which
is common, that is the substance or nature, and the circumscription
(4). The rst refers to that which man signies, the second to
proper names, such as Peter and John.
Gregorys contribution has been studied in detail.72 He is attributed
a fundamental role, even on the terminological level, in the function
and use and signicance of both !
and & . He, for
the rst time, afrms the equivalence of the two terms73 and assigns a
rational or spiritual (and therefore permanent) character to the rst.74
As for & , it appears that Gregory played an equally important
role, clarifying beyond all doubt the strictly personal signication of the
word.75 As M. Richard notes, he is the only one of the Cappadocians
to have recourse to this term in the Christological context.76
In the light of these terminological considerations, it is evident that
the following passage represents a clear example of the negative aspect
of Nyssian apophatism:
For if they ask of us an interpretation (X2) and a description
(&
4) and an explanation () of the divine essence, we will
not deny that we are devoid of such a knowledge, confessing only that
it is not possible that that which is innite be understood with a thought
expressed in words.77
GNO III/1, 5, 1720). See also:

.. &
-
5 X* 3
#
&
-
5 X*
5 4 2!. (AdGraec, GNO III/1, 29, 911), particularly
pertinent for a commentary on the AdAbl.
72
See L. Turcescu, Gregory of Nyssa . . ., and Idem, Person versus Individual, and Other
Modern Misreadings of Gregory of Nyssa, MoTh 18 (2002) 527539.
73
Even their frequency is similar: & a little less than 400 times, in comparison to the few more than 400 times for !
. C. Scouteris afrms that Gregory uses
them as synonyms (cfr. C. Scouteris, z X 7 !2 4/! >

{ 7 ! 2, Theol(A) 40 (1969) 418, note 17).
74
Cfr. J.J. Lynch, PROSPON in Gregory of Nyssa: a Theological Word in Transition, TS
40 (1979) 737738.
75
Studying the term in CE I, J. Ibez and F. Mendoza nish by afrming: el signicado de ese trmino como persona adquiere real e inequvocamente carta de naturaleza en el lenguaje teolgico cristiano y, por tanto, debido a este santo Padre, el vocablo
en cuestin adquiere un valor nuevo y denitivo que tanto la teologa como la losofa
posterior asumir como propio ( J. IbezF. Mendoza, El valor del trmino hypstasis
en el libro I contra Eunomio de Gregorio de Nisa, in L.F. Mateo-Seco (ed.), El Contra Eunomium
I en la produccin literaria de Gregorio de Nisa (VI Coloquio Internacional sobre Gregorio de
Nisa), Eunsa, Pamplona 1988, p. 333).
76
Cfr. M. Richard, Lintroduction du mot hypostase dans la thologie de lincarnation, MSR
2 (1945) 17.
77
r$
2 7 2
"2 X2 &
4 ,
# % 7
/
42
" ,

5
1
.

5
, Q
121
However at the same time, the clarity of the distinction between the
Persons and the substance permits an immense progress towards the
positive and personal aspect of apophatism itself, which is healthily
rooted in the Christology of the Nyssian.
C. von Schnborn individuates, in his analysis of Ep 38, two groups of
concepts which distinguish clearly two levels.78 On one side the sequence:
*
9
"2, 9 4/ * 2
, which refers to that
which is common and for this reason incircumscribable; on the other
side is found: * ^
9 " , * !
* 2
.
The confusion of these two levels lead also to the Iconoclastic
problem, directly linked to a misunderstood apophatism. The emperor
Constantine V sought to give a theological base to Iconoclasticism,
and for this reason convoked the synod of 754. His starting point was
that every image is such in as much as an image of a !
. The
impossibility to circumscribe or de-scribe Christ immediately followed,
since he is the union of two natures in a unique !
.79 Identifying
-4 and -4, the emperor was opposed to the Orthodox,
since he afrmed that to circumscribe the !
of Christ would
be equivalent to circumscribing the ineffable divine nature. It seems
that Constantine did not know, or did not understand, the great Cappadocian Trinitarian theology and its implications. His error was also
Christological, so much so that he could be accused of monophysitism,
since in his understanding of the !
of Christ the two natures
are confused. The theologians of the Iconoclastic synod will transfer
the question of the !
of Christ to the esh of Christ, and will
formulate the problem on the basis of the impossibility to represent
the assumed human nature of our Lord. It will be necessary to wait
until the work of Theodore Studite (759826) for the question placed
in the terms of Constantine to be claried.80
Once again it can be seen that a correct Trinitarian conception,
that does not separate immanence and economy, is always united to a
correct Christology. For the Icon of Christ is possible since the eternal
hypostasis of the Son of God has become visible, circumscribed by his
" @ *
4/
2` 6- ! .47. (CEIII, GNO
II, 38, 1721).
78
Cfr. C. von Schnborn, La lettre 38 de saint Basile et le problme Christologique de
liconoclasme, RSPhTh 60 (1976) 446450.
79
Cfr. Nicephorus, Antirrheticus I, PG 100, 232A.
80
See Theodore Studite, Antirrheticus III, PG 99, 405.
122
chapter two
individuated, and thus gurable, human nature. He who sees the image,
sees the human face of Christ, and this face is the eternal Word.81
In the light of this brief historical sketch it can be seen that the person
encounters its afrmation of innite value precisely in the immanent
Person, in the incarnate Word. The key moment in the development
was when it was realized His Personality as pure relation to the Father:82
this step sheds light to mans dignity through Gregorys creation reading. The theology of the image becomes anthropology of the image.83
Gregory knows that he cannot know the divine essence, but at the same
time, he knows who God is and how he is. For this reason he knows
who man is, how he is, and how much he is worth.84
The discussion of the social analogy is far from being a terminological discussion. The specic rigorous conception of human divinization
tied to it, corresponding in the eschatological reditus to the exitus constituted through creation in the image of the Trinity is the most solid
foundation for the afrmation of human dignity. Nyssian thought has
been analyzed from the perspective of the great value that it gives to
human liberty, according to a founded and legitimate approach. But
the fullness of the radical perspective of the Cappadocian doctrine can
be discovered only through the understanding of the profundity and
realism of the translation of the exitus-reditus schema into Trinitarian
terms, accompanied by the insertion of the corporal dimension into
this dynamic. Liberty is founded in the Trinity.
For the Nyssian the creation of man in the image of the Trinity
actually corresponds to the divinization of man, by which God has
made him a participant in every perfection, since the divine nature is
the sum of all perfections. Among all of these liberty is the highest,
in as much as it is responsibility and the capacity to choose the good.
Virtue is explicitly dened as

, and the liberty of the person
81
Licne du Christ est possible parce que lhypostase ternelle du Fils de Dieu est
devenue visible, circonscrite par sa nature humaine individue, et donc gurable. Celui
qui voit licne, voit le visage humain du Christ; et ce visage est le Verbe ternel (C. von
Schnborn, La lettre 38 . . ., p. 450).
82
The most valuable contribution of L. Turcescus analysis is just his stressing of the
identication of the particularizing notes of each Divine Persons in terms of relations
of origin (cfr. L. Turcescu, Gregory of Nyssa . . ., p. 116).
83
For Gregorys theology of image, see J.B. Schoemann, Gregors von Nyssa theologische
Anthropologie als Bildtheologie, Schol. 18 (1943) 3153; 175200.
84
It is then not surprising to nd that J. Danilou participated in the work of Ariccia
and had, together with Karol Wojty|a, a key role in the redaction of the document that
became Gaudium et Spes. The echo of the Nyssian in GS 22 is undeniable.
123
is directly founded in God.85 Man is created for virtue, as a consequence

he cannot have any masters.
The doctrine of the creation of man in the image of the Trinity is
also the essential element of the famous passage of the InEccl, where
Gregory explicitly condemns slavery:
God said: Let Us make man in Our image and likeness (Gn 1, 26). So tell me,
who will sell and who will buy he who is the likeness of God and who is
lord of all the earth and who received in inheritance from God authority
over all that exists on the earth? Only God can. Or better yet, not even
God himself. For it is said, his gifts are irrevocable (Rm 11, 29).86
This is the foundation of Gregorys reasoning, inseparable from the

afrmation of the unity of human nature, from which the inestimable
value of every individual is born. Thus he can afrm:
However if God does not submit to slavery that which is free, who, placing his own sovereignty above that of God [can do it]? And how will he
who is the head of all the earth and every being on earth be sold? For
it is absolutely necessary that the possession also of that which is sold be
sold along with it. How much will we value the whole earth? And how
much for all the things on it? But if that is incalculable, tell me, what
price will he who is the master have? And if you would say even the
entire earth, you would not even yet have found the corresponding value.
He who knows human nature says that not even the whole universe is a
worthy price of the soul of man.87
The Nyssian loves man and afrms with strength the illegitimacy of
slavery. He is probably the Father of the Church most clear in refuting it,
since Gregory Nazianzen, John Chrysostom and Augustine limit themselves to the consideration of slavery as a consequence of original sin.
85
Cfr. DeHom, PG 44, 184B.
r% 1 G
! !
8 $ 9 1
2!. * 8
1

5
5 F -
7 7 - ! + 7 7

2
5
5 .!-
2 1
.3, $, 2 1 S
/
]

5 * 7
5
, =..

" "
5
5
5. T . "
5,
42, 2 . (InEccl, GNO V, 336, 1016).
87
$ 1 *
"
.
# * ./
, 2 1 &
5
5 X
5
2] + 1 ! - 7 7 + 2! - !]
- = * 7
5 !.

2
.

2 =
7 ]
7 7 - ] $ 5 2 , 1 & 5

2
7, $
] ? *
Q.
^0,
"
P ! y *
2 .
" Q.
% *
1 $g !2 4/ E+
=
% 7 ' 7
5 3
-... (Ibidem, 336, 18337, 7).
86
124
chapter two
It is the theology of the image, that is to say his theological anthropology that leads the Nyssian to this afrmation.88
This passage of the concept of person from a negative sense to one
that is absolute and positive has as a consequence a rediscovered value
of historicity. The struggle with the essentially ahistoric Greek thought
is too strong, but the breach is open. With the person the value of history and liberty is also discovered.89 From the moment that time was
no longer the imperfect reection of eternity, but the place of a divine
action, the decision of liberty took on a singular value, at the same
time that the sense of responsibility was deepened.90
It is true that the Greek Fathers prefer to speak of nature, but for
them it is a completely different conception than the modern one. The
Greek Fathers always understand it as a concrete reality. Danilou
afrms for example: The term 4/ always designates, in Gregory,
a concrete existing reality.91 For this reason there cannot be a radical
opposition of nature and person. Instead nature and person are intimately intertwined, since persons are united by the common nature.
The highest manifestation of the inseparability of person and nature is,
then, action, which is realized according to nature, but has the person
as subject. Thus it is the same Greek Fathers, and the Nyssian before
all, that create the conditions to give history its true value. Gregory
manifests this clearly: by founding the value of the human person in the
88
See the beautiful article: T.J. Dennis, The Relationship Between Gregory of Nyssas Attack
on Slavery in his Fourth Homily on Ecclesiastes and his Treatise De Hominis Opicio, StPatr 17/3
(1982) 10651072. Other ne texts are P.M. Gregorios, Cosmic Man, New Delhi 1980,
pp. 133136 and the articles of L. Wickham, M.M. Bergad and E. Ferguson in S.G.
Hall, Gregory of Nyssa: Homilies on Ecclesiastes, New York 1993. The refutation of slavery
on Gregorys part has been placed in doubt by some authors, such as R. Moriarty,
Human Owners, Human Slaves: Gregory of Nyssa, Hom. Eccl. 4, StPatr 27 (1993) 6269 and
S. Elm, Virgins of God: The Making of Ascetism in Late Antiquity, Oxford 1994, precisely and
denitively criticized in D.F. Stramara, Gregory of Nyssa: An Ardent Abolitionist?, SVTQ
41 (1997) 3760. See also: G. Maspero, La dimensione trinitaria della dignit delluomo. LAd
Ablabium e lanalogia sociale di Gregorio di Nissain A. Rodrguez LuoE. Colom (edd.),
Teologia ed Etica Politica, Roma 2005, 149170.
89
Cfr. Cl. Desalvo, Loltre nel presente, la losoa delluomo in Gregorio di Nissa, Milan
1996, pp. 80s.
90
Ds lors que le temps ntait plus le reet imparfait de lternit, mais le lieu dune
action divine, la dcision de la libert prenait une valeur singulire, en mme temps que
sapprofondissait le sens de la responsabilit ( J. Danilou, La notion . . ., p. 10).
91
Le 4/ mot dsigne toujours chez Grgoire une ralit concrte existante
( J. Danilou, Platonisme et thologie mystique. Doctrine spirituelle de saint Grgoire de Nysse, Paris
1944, p. 57). The case of Hellenism is quite different, which refers much more to the
essence. In this sense Lossky is right when he afrms: tre pour la pense hellnistique
signie tre dune manire ordonne, avoir une essence (V. Lossky, Thologie Mystique de
lglise dOrient, Aubier 1944, p. 87).
125
Trinity and prohibiting, with his theological construction, the separation between immanence and economy, he places the foundations of
an authentic theology of history.92
One sees thus that apophatism, in its negative aspect regards the
essence, while the person is given access to the divinity. Whoever limits
contemplation and thought, distinguishing the immanent person from
the economic, loses everything, in the name of a pious mysticism: he
loses the icon, orthodoxy, and piety itself.
V. The Theology of Name
a. The Name of Christ
For Gregory then, the dispute on names is not simply a philosophical
dispute, nor is it only a delicate theological question: it regards the
essence of Christianity itself. This is clear in the treatise DePerf:93 in it
the Nyssian develops a true and proper theology of name,94 attributing to the name that Christians carry an authentic participation in the
name of Christ himself.
Our good Lord Jesus Christ has given us the grace to participate
(
!2) in [his] adored (

)95 name, so that we are not
named with any other name of that which surrounds us; even if one is
found to be rich and noble, or if he is of humble origins and poor, or is
known for a certain occupation or dignity, despite all this those names are
useless, since one appellative alone is proper to those who have believed
in him: to be called Christians.96
92
Cfr. G. Maspero, }rUuU~, U[UU e ZpU: La teologia della storia di
Gregorio di Nissa, Excerpta e dissertationibus in Sacra Theologia 45 (2003) 383451.
93
For a beautiful analysis of the treatise, see: L.F. Mateo-Seco, Imitacin y seguimiento
de Cristo en Gregorio de Nisa, ScrTh 33 (2001) 601622.
94
J. Danilou shows that the incipient Judeo-Christian Christology designated Christ
with the title of name of God. This had a central role in the interpretation of the signatio
with a on the forehead, in the Baptismal rite, with which the name of Christian was
conferred to Catechumens, through the rst letter of the name of Christ (cfr. J. Danilou, Thologie du judo-Christianisme, Tournai 1958, pp. 199216). This is probably the
theological basis for the theology of name that Gregory develops.
95
In the DePerf, Gregory uses often the term and root of

/
, which
refers to Phil 2, 11, (even if the maximum relative frequency of the root is found in the
AdSimp and the AdMac). On the importance of the passage in the Nyssian work, cfr. L.F.
Mateo Seco, Knosis, exaltacin de Cristo y apocatstasis en la exgesis a Filipenses 2, 511 de
Gregorio de Nisa, ScrTh 3 (1971) 301340.
96
p
5
5
9+
5
5

!2 9#
5

:
, H 9= * ..
+ 9= :
-<,
? .
/ n / 0 " 2 ? e _ , ? - !
126
chapter two
The appellative of Christian is then a true and proper participation

in Christ himself, a communion (
!2) with him, since the name
of Christian derives from that of Christ himself.97 Christ is, then, for
Gregory, an abbreviated Christology.98
Gregory thus afrms that the explanation of the signication of the
name of Christ is to be sought in the Christological titles that appear
in the Pauline writings, of which he cites a long list: from Power and
Wisdom of God to inaccessible Light, from Corner Stone to Foundation
of the faith, from Image of the invisible God to the Lord of Glory.99
All these names are intertwined and mutually illuminate each other:
the eminence of the name of Christ indicates in rst place the power
of a King, for which reason all the Christological titles are recapitulated in that of Kingdom. Gregory then confronts the question of
apophatism:
Therefore, since it has been given by our good Lord to participate in the
greatest and most divine of names in such a way that, honoured with
the imposition of the name of Christ (!2`) we are called Christians, it is necessary that all the meanings of the name (X
: ) be observed in us, so that such a nomination be not a false
name ('3
) for us, but receive the testimony of [our] life. For it
is not being that derives from being called in a certain way, but it is rather
the nature that is the foundation, whatever it may be, and makes itself
known through the signication of the name that is attributed to it. For
example: if one gave a tree or a rock the name of man, will the tree or
the rock be, due to this appellative, a man? Absolutely not: but it is rst
necessary that a man be, and only then can one designate him with the
name of [his] nature.100
+ _ !- ! * 3
@ 0, - ! +

/ ! :
- !
/ ! 2
% 2 .7
# $ " * *
) :
-<G (DePerf,
GNO VIII/1, 173, 15174, 7).

97
Cfr. ibidem, 174, 1516.
98
L.F. Mateo-Seco, Cristologia e linguaggio in Gregorio di Nissa, in Lingua e teologia nel cristianesimo greco. Atti del convegno tenuto a Trento l1112 dicembre 1997, Brescia 1999, p. 232.
99
Cfr. DePerf, GNO VIII/1, 175, 14176, 10.
100
"
5
5 2

-
3
+ :
- !

5
5
9# 9
!2, H
) ; !2`
5
5

) :
-<, #
? ^ - X
7
/ 4!7 : 9#
=, > '3
48 9+
% .7, ..8
5 E2
2 @ .
"
5 .#2
* % 2 , ..8 9 &
4/,
( 8 ?
W / 0, 7
4
5

5 :
2 !2< .
j .!G $ _ `

2
3
2
, \ !
@ .7 _ * 4 * _ 1 .2
]
" @
5 G .. +
% !
, %8
P ! :
7 ;

2` 7
4/!. (Ibidem, 177, 720).
127
The strong unity of Gregorys thought pushes him to combine, in an

exemplary manner, moral exhortation to the most pure and profound
ontology: being precedes the name, for which reason we must be true
Christians, to be called by such a name.
The Nyssian continues, specifying that not even those things that
are similar are called with the same name, for example a statue that
represents a man or a horse. When it is an imitation, one uses with
precision a name that refers to the nature, that is to bronze or to
stone.101 He concludes:
Thus it is necessary that those who call themselves with the name that
comes from Christ be above all that which the name signies, and only
then apply to themselves the appellative.102
When one observes the statue of a man, one is before a simple imitation (2), that has received the image of man in a matter that
does not have the properties that characterize human nature. For this
reason it is possible to distinguish the true Christian from the one who
only appears as such:
In this way we will recognize who is truly (F !) Christian, in respect to
him who only seems to be so, by the properties that manifest themselves
in their characteristic traits. And the characteristic traits of he who is
truly Christian are all those that we have considered in Christ. Of those,
we imitate (
/) those that we are capable, while we revere and
adore those that nature cannot imitate. Thus, it is necessary that all those
names that explain the signication of Christ be resplendent in the life of
the Christian, some through imitation, others through adoration, if the
man of God wishes to be perfect, as the Apostle,103 without mutilating
in any way perfection by evil.104
There is a clear distinction between the imitation of sculpture which is

extrinsic and passive, and the imitation of the Christian, which must be
101
Cfr. ibidem, 177, 21178, 1.
U"
5
) *
5
5 X
) :
-<
+
Q *
F
E
/. , %8
P ! X
# 4 .7. (Ibidem, 178, 24).
102
103
Cfr. 2 Tim 3, 17.
P ! * * F ! F *

5 + 4
!

# 7 $!- ! !. 7
5 F !
5 -
#- , Q * *
. J Q !
5,
/G Q

" !# 9 4/ * 2, E-

5.
"
5 -
X 7
5
5 2 : .-
5
5
E2, !,
!, $ ..

% 1
5
5
!
, 3 4 1
.
,
5 7 2 ! -<!
. (DePerf, GNO VIII/1,178, 919).
104
128
chapter two
a true and proper imitatio Christi: the greatness of Gregorys Christological thought permits him to distinguish, in Christ, those characteristics
that are attainable by our nature from that which belongs to Christ
as God.
In the Antir, Gregory shows the profound depth of his Christology,
afrming that Christ in as much as man had to possess a proper name.
For this reason Gabriel revealed to Mary the name of Jesus. Despite the
fact that the divine nature is incomprehensible and inexpressible with
a name, the union of the two natures makes it possible for God to be
called by a name in his humanity,105 in this way the name of Jesus will
receive adoration and he will be a man above any name, a property
that in itself corresponds to the Divinity.106
Thus those names that cannot reach to the immutable divine
nature, since they are shadows of the things and can only manifest the
movements and dynamics, become expressive of the divinity in Christ,
since God himself entered into time and has made dynamics his
own.107 This is given to us in a manner that we can understand, it
is offered to us in history. God truly has a name now.108 And this is
105
L.F. Mateo-Seco speaks of this as of a splendid communicatio idiomatum (L.F.
Mateo-Seco, Cristologia . . ., p. 244).
106
1 * !
!2
.
2 :
* $-<

/ 7
;
5 ~E.
!2 * 3
, g ^ ,
5 S
-, 9 2 4/
2. : , a /
7 -!
G
/
-
1 *
5 !2

-< . :
5 = -'
1 !
& F
2 , Q ^ 7
7 .!7
&
:
7 2 (Antir, GNO III/1, 161, 1322).
107
Gregory, in the InCant, asks himself how the mortal and ethereal nature could have
been spousally united (<2`
7: a very strong expression, which corresponds to the Latin copulatio and, perhaps, hazarding a somewhat suggestive hypothesis
in regard to apophatism, to the Biblical to know) to the simple and in itself inaccessible
nature, for us who live in the shadows, if the shadow of the body had not been interposed with the light (cfr. InCant, GNO VI, 108, 710).
108
J. Ratzinger has discussed splendidly the theme of the name of God: in Ex 3.14
the revealed name of God is, more than a true name, an I am who I am, thus an invitation to negative theology. The complement to this episode can be found, then, with
the revelation of the name of Christ ( Jn 17.6, 26). It is the 3 $ of John (appearing
10 times as an absolute afrmation) that completes the episode of the burning bush, in
which I am what I am becomes I am, I am here for you that is the afrmation of
the presence and proximity of God, incarnate now and forever for us ( J. Ratzinger,
Einfhrung in das Christentum, Ksel 1968, pp. 94ss). The observation is all the more interesting since Gregory, in the DeVitaMo, interprets the episode of the burning bush in
Christological and ontological terms: it is as if the positive aspect of apophatism was
underlined by him in the moment when the aspect of being is placed in the forefront.
129
all through love of man: the very name of Christ has become 4.!2.109
b. The Image
Still in the DePerf, Gregory praises the profundity of Paul and his penetration into the divine mysteries, commenting the afrmation of He
1.3 that Christ is, in relationship to the Father, radiance of his glory and
impression of his substance:110
For [Paul], knowing how much human capacity can know of the divine
nature, shows that the discourse on the supreme substance is inexplicable
and incomprehensible to human reasonings. Therefore, while speaking of
that which can be contemplated in itPeace, Power, Life, Justice, Light,
Truth and similar attributeshe declares that the discourse about that
substance itself is absolutely incomprehensible, afrming that God has
never been seen, and never will be. For he says that no one among men has
ever seen him, or can see him.111 For this reason, seeking out what to call that
which cannot be understood by reasonings, as he did not nd a name
adapted to express the signicance of the inexpressible, he called glory
and substance that which is above every good and which is not thought
or expressed ttingly. He left, then, the essence that is above all beings
without name. But to explain the union and inseparability of the Son in
relationship to the Father and the fact that one contemplates him together
with the innite and eternal Father in innity and eternity, he calls him
radiance of his glory and impression of <his substance>, indicating with the
word radiance the identity of nature and with the word impression equality. For one does not conceive of something between the splendour and
the nature that is resplendent, nor does one conceive of a diminution of
the impression in relationship to the substance (& ) from which
it is impressed; but he who thinks of the resplendent nature thinks also
always of splendour along with it and he who thinks of the greatness of
the substance measures also based on the image that manifests the substance.112 For this reason [Paul] says also that the Lord is Form113 (
4)
of God, not to diminish the Lord with the concept of form,114 but to
show the greatness of God with the form, in which the greatness of the
Father is contemplated, who does not in any way exceed his proper form,
m F
9 4.!2
. (InCant, GNO VI, 107, 45).
Here & has been translated with substance, understood as something that
concretely exists, according to the sense of the word in the moment that the author of
Hebrews wrote.
111
1 Tim 6.16.
112
This is a reference to the 4+ 4! of Nicea (see p. 133).
113
Phil 2.6.
114
To exclude any reductive interpretation of
4, cfr. Antir, GNO III/1, 159.
109
110
130
chapter two
and cannot be found outside his own image. In fact there is nothing of
the Father that is unformed or devoid of beauty and that is not full of
joy in the beauty of the Only Begotten. For this reason, the Lord says he
who has seen Me has seen the Father,115 signifying by this that there is neither
defect nor excess of any kind.116
Therefore, Paul did not give any name to the divine substance, which
is and remains ineffable, but he spoke to us of Christ, who is the image
of the Father. And to be image does not imply inferiority. Rather, it is
precisely in being image that the glory of the Father is fully radiant.
Gregorys discourse is here turned to Trinitarian immanence; for he
says that Christ is he who always is, since he always knows he who is:
the Son has his regard xed eternally on the Father (see note 132 on
p. 186). This knowledge is distinct from the human knowledge of this
reality, which is limited and must continually grow.117
However Christ is not a distant and extrinsic Image.118 He is the
Image to make of us other images of God:
Thus, he who is above every knowledge and understanding, who is ineffable, indescribable and unexplainable, to make you image of God anew,
115
Jn 14.9.
- Q !# 9 !2 / 7 2 4/!

4 2.
.

# !2
* 7 &
"2

42 .
. * " !
/ .!, $ /
<!
/ 4+ .
5 , * " 7 2
.
.
% .+ !2
, $g X!=2
* *
:4. % - 4 3!
"
" $# / .
5
< + + :
- * -
.

# .47, >
" y 4 *
F
7 + . ! X2, & S * &2

*
5 *
/
2! 4<
.
W &
+ F !
"2 47

G * 4 -

5 M
5
* * /! *
2 i2
2 !
i2! !
/
/ 7 &
-!

/,
- * 4 /
, 7 * $
-
.
B
"7 * -<
4/
# 2

B
5 7

.- ! * &8 "
5 <
& , .. 1
-<
4/
* / / 0 - ! 1
*
7 &
-! .Eg 4
7 - ! #
& . *
4
5 . * /
,
" /! ; 7
47
2` * /
, .. *

5
5 7
47 /
,
!#
5 * 9 . ,
"
5 7 $2
47 &2

" @!
5 " 7
&
.
4
.. *

", D ; >
5

5 -.. G 4 1 /
Q
X!g X3 * , 2!
/
* @..'2 %
& !. (DePerf, GNO VIII/1, 188, 2189, 16).
116
117
118
Cfr. ibidem, 194, 1014.

The being of the image is the being of the Son.
131
for love of man (&* 4.!2) made of himself also the image of
the invisible God, so as to be congured to you in the very form that
he assumed and so that you be, by him, newly congured to the image
( 7) of the archetypal beauty, to become that which you were
from the beginning. Therefore, if we are to become as well images of
the invisible God, it is tting that the form of our life ( 7 <!7 9+)
be conformed to the model of life (
5 E2
) that is proposed to us.119
And what is this model? While living in the esh, to not live according
to the esh.120 For the prototypical image of the invisible God, who came
among us by means of the Virgin, was tried in all in likeness of human
nature, but he did not allow only the experience of sin.121
The passage is an incredible synthesis of all of Nyssian theology: he

starts from the Trinity, in which the Son is the image of the Father,
who for love created man according to his image and likeness. Due to
the indelity of man, the Son became man to restore to us the beauty
of the original image, in which we were created. The movement
starts from the Trinity to return to the Trinity. Creation is inseparable
from redemption and eschatology, which is the moment in which the
restitution of the image will be perfectly accomplished in every man,
and thus, in man. The theology of the name extends to the theology
of the image.
Gregory says that Christians are like the apprentices of a great artist,
who are learning from him the art of painting. They strive to imitate
the beauty of the work of the master, and if they were to succeed in
their intention, the canvases of all would reproduce the beauty of the
proposed example. Thus each one is the painter of his own life ( 7
$2 K
<!7 <!-4
),122 in which the free will is like the
artisan of the work and the virtues are like the colours, which serve
119
120
Cfr. Jn 13.15. See below at note 173.

Cfr. Rm 8.12.
121
y

2 1 & - 33 .'!, 1 4

.-.

, (
0 -. $
5, " * &*
4.!2
$g
5
5
5
-
, H ; $2`
4;, l .E,

4!7 -. 8 X
5 * * 7
5 /

7 -..
, $ * Q 7.
"
5 $ ..

2 9# $g
5
5
-
, * * 2
9#
5 E2

&
5
7 <!7 9+ * %
G
5
2] *
<+ - <7. 9 !
2
5
-

5 $g 9
7
- - 8 1
7 !2
4/!,
"
7 d 2 #. (DePerf, GNO VIII/1,
194, 14195, 12).

122
Ibidem, 196, 3.
132
chapter two
to form the image.123 For this reason it is necessary that the colours be
pure, to avoid painting the marvellous image of the Lord on a face
rendered ugly by the lth of vice:
However it is necessary that, as much as possible, the colours of the
virtues be pure, amalgamated according to an artistic combination one
with another, to receive the imitation of beauty (
5 -..
2),
in this way we will become images of the image ( 7 $
$),
reproducing the beauty of the model, thanks to an imitation that is active
as much as possible.124
It is important to highlight the original value of the concept of image

for Gregory. Danilou underlines the difference between the sense
of the word $3 in Plato and in Philo: for the rst the reference is
to the sensible world in its relationship to the intelligible world. It is
thus a certain analogy, but inferiority is that which is prominent. This
pejorative sense of $3 can be found in a few points in the writings
of the Nyssian. Philo, on the other hand, uses this category to express
participation, applying it to .
, to
, and even to the human

5. Gregory primarily follows this second meaning. It designates a
true community of nature. Nevertheless it carries a certain number of
distinctions which the Christian uses of the word did not imply. Applied
to the .
, as it is already in St. Paul (Col 1.15, Cfr. Wis 7.26), it
[$3] does not signify a decient participation, but the pure relation
of origin in perfect equality of nature: it is a new meaning, linked to
the Trinitarian dogma.125 Gregory thus puries this category of the subordinationist undertones that surrounded it in the Trinitarian sphere.
This highlights the economic extension of the concept even more:
when the Nyssian afrms that man must be image of the image, he is
speaking of an authentic divinization. But can one still speak of a true
community of nature?
123
Cfr. ibidem, 195, 14196, 9.

..8 H , # + + 3 -
2 * ... *
5 -..
2 .E-, H
9= 7 $
$, 8
5 >
j !
*
!
-..
(Ibidem, 196, 914).
125
Il dsigne une vritable commaunaut de nature. Toutefois il comporte un
certain nombre de distinctions que noffraient pas les emplois non-chrtiens du mot.
Appliqu au .
, comme il lest dj chez saint Paul (Col 1.15, Cfr. Sag 7.26), il ne
dsigne pas une participation dciente, mais pure relation dorigine dans la parfaite
galit de la nature: cest un sens nouveau, li au dogme trinitaire ( J. Danilou, Platonisme . . ., p. 53).
124
133
c. Connaturality
Gregory continues to give examples, afrming for example, that among
the colours in which the life of Christ is painted there is humility and
patience, demonstrated in enduring without complaining the spittings,
the insults, the beatings until his redemptive death in which he pardons
and saves his executioners.
Our being the images of the Image thus requires an explanation.
How is this possible? Is it only an extrinsic imitation as the example of
the painting might suggest, or is it an ontological reality? The Nyssian
responds using the category of connaturality:
He who has learned that Christ is the Head of the Church, consider
rst of all that every head is of the same nature (1
4) and substance
(1
/
) with the body which is subject to it, and that there is a unique
connaturality (4) of each part in relationship to the whole, which
thanks to a unique co-spiration126 ( =
2) actuates the
conformity of sensation127 (-) of the parts together with the
whole. Therefore, if something is external to the body, it is also totally
external to the head. With this the reasoning teaches us that also each
member must become that which the head is by nature, to be intimately
united with the head (* 4.
$2! @ 0). And we are the
members that complete the body of Christ.128
The Nyssian doctrine is extremely clear and audacious: one must

reach the level of a true participation in the divine nature.129 That
126
This is a key concept for Gregory, who sees the cosmos, the Church and every
man as a symphony in which the breathing of the parts is coordinated with the whole.
Cfr J. Danilou, Ltre et le temps chez Grgoire de Nysse, Leiden 1970, 5074. The theme is
developed well in H.-I. Marrou, Une thologie de la musique chez Grgoire de Nysse? in Epektasis: Mlanges patristiques offerts au Card. J. Danilou, Beauchesne 1972, pp. 501508.
127
It is not only participation in the suffering of the other, but the word refers also
to the cords of an instrument that sound in unison (cfr. Theo of Smyrna, De utilitate
mathematicae, 51).
128
4. 7 .2 * * % g
5
* - !

2!, Q = 4. &
3 1
4 1
/

2 2 + 8 K
.+ * * Q.
9 4, =
2
<
* -.
"
5 ^
5 3
,
5
- ! * 4. ..
2! @ . /
2
/ !
1 .
9=, Q 9 4. 4/,
5
8 K
2
., ( * 4.
$2! @ 0. 9# .,
M $ * +
5

5 .
5 . (DePerf, GNO VIII/1, 197, 19198, 4).
129
H. von Balthasar expresses this having opportune recourse to the categories of
the avoir Dieu, which is immutable for man due to the impossibility to understand the
divine nature, and tre Dieu, which is possible at the interior of the analogical path (cfr.
H. von Balthasar, Prsence . . ., p. 81).
134
chapter two
which seems an absurdity, a blasphemy for the Greek spirit as well as

for the Judaic spirit becomes possible in Christ. Divinization becomes
a reality in Christ.
Gregory then refers to the situation of perversity in which men nd
themselves, commenting the words of Sacred Scripture the sinners are
deviated from the maternal dwelling, perverted from the womb, they speak lies:130
For this reason [the Son] assuming in body and soul the rst fruits of
the common nature, rendered it holy, preserving it in himself pure of
every evil and keeping it uncontaminated, to consecrate it in the incorruptibility to the Father of incorruptibility and to attract with himself
all that is connatural (= * 4/) and of the same
species (14.
), in order to re-admit those who were disinherited to
the inheritance of lial adoption131 (M
2) and the enemies of God
to the participation in his divinity. Therefore, as rst fruit of the mass132
he was united to the true God and Father by purity and impassibility133
(2), so also we, who are the mass, will be united by similar paths to
the Father of incorruptibility, through the imitation (
5 ),
as much as is possible, of the impassibility () and immutability
(..
2!
) of the Mediator (
5 2
). For in this way we will be
the crown of the Only Begotten God, [composed] of precious stones,
becoming honour and glory through [our] life (
5 E2
).134
Everything moves through the mediation of Christ, whose life and virtues
we must struggle to imitate. This imitation involves man in his totality:
130
Ps 58.4.
Cfr. Eph 1.5.
132
Cfr. Rm 11.16.
133
It is literally apathy: this is another case of the Christianization of a typical
category of the philosophy of the epoch. In this case the vocabulary is from the Stoic
school, in which beings deprived and free from passions were considered the supreme
ideal. Gregory transforms this terminology into a Christological category, indicating
with it the imperturbability of Jesus before sufferings and offences: all the abuses of
man, which culminate in the atrocious torment of the Cross, do not move Christ from
his love. For this reason the highest manifestation of - is the nal pardon to his
own executioners.
131
134

/
- 7
7 4/! .Eg ' 7 3

d2
2, - 2 7 -
" X 3, (
/ 7 42 7 42 - 8 " 7
= * 4/ " ; 14.

)
/

$ M
2
)
)
5
5 $ 7
"
5
2.
"
5 H 9
5 4-
2 3
. ,
P ! 9# * 4/ + 1
2! 1+ 7
42
..
5 , g ? e ,
5 2
*
..
2!
.
P !
5

5
5 4
.2!
2!,
5 E2

. (DePerf, GNO VIII/1, 197, 206, 116).
135
For I maintain that if one thinks constantly that he participates in the

adorable Name, calling himself Christian, according to the Apostolic
doctrine,135 then it is necessary that he shows in himself the power also
of the other names, with which we know Christ, participating in each
appellative through [his] life. I mean to say that there are three characteristics of the Christian life: action, word and thought. The principle
in respect to the others is thought. For thought is the principle of every
word, and in second place after reection comes language, which reveals
through the voice the thought that is impressed in the soul. And in third
place, after mind and language comes action, which transforms into
activity that which it has been thought. Therefore, when the course of
life guides us to one of these situations, it is good to examine ourselves
with attention, in all our words, action and thought, in relationship to
the divine concepts with which Christ is known and called, so that our
action and our speaking and our thought do not distance themselves from
the power of those sublime names.136
The names of Christ are the measure for the Christian and involve him
completely, rst of all in his thought, which is the principle of speaking.
The afrmation is quite interesting as it highlights the importance of
thought to be Christian. Apophatism has nothing to do with negating
the possibilities of the human reason. We must follow Christ rst of all
with thought, to be able to imitate him in words and action, reproducing
in ourselves, through divine grace, his life. Then Gregory concludes:
Therefore this is, in my judgment, the perfection of Christian life: to
be in communion, in the soul, in words and in the occupations of life,
with all the names by which is indicated the name of Christ, in such a
way that each one reaches perfect sanctity, according to the blessing of
Paul,137 constantly far, in the whole body, in the soul and spirit, from
every contact with evil.138
135
Cfr. Acts 11.26.
% -, ^
5
.
2<

, Q
!
5

:
* +
.! * 2<!, 2! +
..! :
- !,
j 1 *
# , 48 X
5 2 /,
!*
X- .!
5 E2

.
j .!G 2 2<

5

5 * E2
2G =, .
, /
.
/ ! 3
+ ..!
* /
. 2 .
* 9 -
, /

/ 1 .
2, !# ; ' ; -
7 4!7 ./ !,
2 - *
5 * .
9 =, *
$

.
"
5 Q ^
/ ! 9= 9
.
2
5 E2

- , .+
@ * .
@

# 5
, 8 J 1
*
# :
-< , 8 E2
#, @! 7 -!
+ &'.+ 2! :
- ! 4 9+ _ * @
_ 1 .
_ * /
. (DePerf,
136
GNO VIII/1, 209, 23210, 17).

137
Cfr. 1 Thess 5.23.
138
p
5

2 - 2 * E2 .
, *
136
chapter two
Gregory has thus reached a summit in his theological research. He, as

a thinker of the 4th century, immersed in a strongly Neoplatonic and
profoundly Greek environment, discovers in the revelation of Christ that
the mutability of human nature is not only negative. On the contrary,
it is precisely his capacity to change that gives him the possibility to
progress innitely towards the better, towards God:
Therefore the reasoning shows that that which seems to be fearedI
mean to say that our nature is mutableis instead a wing for the ight
towards the greatest things, since it would be a punishment for us to not
be able to undertake a change for that which is better. Therefore let not
he who sees in his nature the disposition to change become aficted, but
moving in every thing towards that which is better and transforming
himself from glory to glory,139 let him change thus, becoming every day
constantly better, in daily growth, and perfecting himself always more,
without ever being able to reach the limit of perfection. For in this consists
true perfection: to never stop growing towards the best and to place no
limits to perfection.140
As Spira did well to underline,141 Gregorys conception of virtue

represents a true and proper conceptual revolution. It is an innite
movement towards the innite,142 which unhinges the very foundation
- ! + :
- !,
j *
5
5 2 F
,
!2 @
' ; .
#
5 E2
/, H 1.
.7 * d*
".
2
5 V/.
48 X
5 1.
. 3
; ' ; / @! 7 * * * 2 + 4.
.
(DePerf, GNO VIII/1, 212, 17213, 1).

139
2 Cor 3.18. Cfr J. DanilouH. Musurillo, From glory to glory, New York 1979,
p. 69.
140
"
5 * 4
E* %

5 (.! * 9+ % 4/)
j
* * 2<! 7 1 .
&, > <2 % 9# *
/ * * #
..
2! .
2 .2! 1 E.!
; 4/ * * E
.
, .. * * #
*
..

/
* $
4
/

P ! !, 7 8
9 "! -
2 !
.
/

*
* 4-! 7 .
. P - 9 > .+ . *

7 * * #
"

2 . .
(DePerf, GNO VIII/1, 213, 20214, 6).

141
Cfr. A. Spira, Le temps dun homme selon Aristote et Grgoire de Nyssa, in Colloques
internationaux du CNRS, Paris 1984, p. 289s.
142
This is , which is a key category for the DeVitaMo. The very name of
Christ is presented as rock, that is solid and stable terrain thanks to which it is possible
to throw oneself towards the heights, in the race of the virtues. The ideal is immobility
in movement, the constant progress, since time and eternity are no longer dialectically
opposed. Cfr. DeVitaMo, II, 244. Danilou points out that the symbol of truth is quite
different for the Greeks and the Hebrews. Greek . is symbolized by light and its
profound sense is the transparence of the object to the spirit. On the other hand, the
symbol of the Hebrew xemet is the rock (cfr. Dt 32, 4) and the reference is to the solidity
137
of Aristotelian logic. For the Greek world identied perfection with

the nite.143
Time and history thus reach an apex of dignity, since, in Christ,
they have become a path to God. For this reason Gregory insists on the
word E2
, which represents daily life, that life in which Christ shared
in our condition, working, loving and suffering.
The beautiful words of Guardini can be applied here, when he
expresses the value of the Incarnation for history: thus the Now of
existence has a clearly perceived place in the whole of worldly time, this
is so much more meaningful as the Incarnation of God becomes more
efcacious in the life of every redeemed man, with its relationship of
Eternity and Time, as it transforms the naked instant into the decisive
moment for existence.144 Time opens up to eternity.
The full sense of apophatism is thus found in a face. It defends
the ontological profundity of nature against the foolish and arrogant
attacks of the human intellect, to open the eyes to the whole man:
apophatism nds its completion and end in the face of Christ. In this
way it is in the Person that the path to the nature itselfthe divine
natureis opened to man:
Thus, to explain with a denition the signicance of Christianity, we would
say that Christianity is the imitation (2) of the divine nature.145
This should not seem exaggerated, since man was created from the
beginning in the image and likeness of God, through which he is
naturally attracted to the divine.146
of the foundation, the veracity of the witness. The rst is opposed to error, the second
to the lie. God thus appears more as faithful than as true. (cfr. J. Danilou, Dieu et Nous,
Paris 1956, pp. 110115).
143
Cfr. E. Muehlenberg, Die Unendlichkeit Gottes bei Gregor von Nyssa. Gregors Kritik am
Gottesbegriff der klassischen Metaphysik, Gttingen 1966, pp. 2958 and R. Guardini, Das
Ende der Neuzeit, Basel 1950, pp. 1315.
144
So hat das Jetzt des Existierens einen deutlich empfundenen Ort im Ganzen
der Weltzeitum so bedeutungvoller, als im Leben jedes Erlsten die Menschwerdung
Gottes mit ihrem Verhltnis von Ewigkeit und Zeit wirksam wird, und aus der blossen Zeitstelle des Jetzt den ber die Existenz entscheidenden Augenblick macht
(R. Guardini, Das Ende der Neuzeit, Basel 1950, p. 28) .
145
"
5 > Q
5
5 -
X/,
P !

5, Q 7 2 4/! 2. (DeProf, GNO VIII/1, 136,
68).
146
In the DeBeat, Gregory explicitly afrms that man leaves behind his own nature:
E2 X
5 4/ 1 !
, -

5

4

* Q.
* 3

. (DeBeat, GNO VII/2,
151, 1517).
138
chapter two
At this point, Danilous observation is very important: for we have

already noted that 4/ indicates the concrete reality, and that thus
on the level of nature one can speak of a community between God
and man or between man and the angels, while one could not speak
of a community of the
"2.147
Salvation in Christ then cannot simply be something extrinsic. Man
is instead guided, in the life and heart of Christ, to his state of original
communion, to his original capacity to love.148 And all of this is signied by a name, by the name of Christian.149
Conclusion
The following passage of the InCant, in which Gregory comments your
name is a perfume poured out of Song 1.3, is particularly stimulating as a
form of conclusion:
Again, in the passages that follow, the soul, that is the spouse, reaches a
higher philosophy, showing the inaccessibility and incomprehensibility ( *
3
) of the divine power for human reasonings.
In this passage it is said: your name is a perfume (/
) poured out. For, it
seems to me that with this discourse it is indicated, in a certain manner,
that it is not possible that the innite (
) nature be exactly understood in the signication of a name. But all the power of concepts and
every expression of words and names, even if it seems to have something
great and suitable to the divinity, does not have the natural capacity to
attain being in itself. But starting from traces and glimmers, our reason
conjectures on that which is unknown, representing to itself, based upon
a certain analogy150 (@
.
2), the incomprehensible through
that which is understood. It is said, in fact, that whatever name we can
147
Nous avons dj not, en effet, que la 4/ indique la ralit concrte et quainsi
sur le plan de la nature on peut parler dune communaut entre Dieu et lhomme ou
entre lhomme et les anges, alors quon ne pourrait parler dune communaut d
"2.
( J. Danilou, Platonisme . . ., p. 102).
148
Cfr. L.F. Mateo Seco, Estudios sobre la cristologa de San Gregorio de Nisa, Pamplona
1978, pp. 257258.
149
This centrality of person is essential to the Nyssian conception of the mysticism
of the shadows as well, which is found in exact parallel in respect to the proposed reading of Gregorys apophatism (cfr. J. Danilou, Mystique de la tnbre chez Grgoire de Nysse,
under Contemplation, in DSp II/2, cc. 18721885). In a certain sense, for the Nyssian, the
question of the knowledge of God, of mysticism or of the beatic vision are themes that
cannot be separated.
150

..
7 - ! - + !
! .
2 $
+ @
5 % (CE II, GNO I, 230, 2729).
139
imagine, among those that correspond to the perfume of the divinity,

expressing that which we say, do not manifest the perfume itself, but
with the theological names151 (
.

#) we indicate [only] some light
traces of the perfume (.2'

5) of the divine fragrance ( 7 2
"!2). Thus by the vases, from which the perfume has been poured
out, one is ignorant of the nature itself of the perfume that was poured
out of the vases, but from a certain indistinct quality, left by the perfumes
on the bottom of the vase, we form a conjecture on the poured out
perfume. Therefore, from what has been said, we learn that the perfume
itself of the Divinity, whatever it may be in [its] essence, is above every
name and every concept. While the marvels that are contemplated in the
universe furnish the matter for the theological names, with which we call
[God] wise, powerful, good, holy, beatied and eternal, judge, saviour and
with attributes of this type.152 All of them together do not indicate more
than a small quality of divine perfume, of which the entire creation is
impregnated, in the guise of a vase for perfumes, thanks to the marvels
that are contemplated in it.153
In this marvellous text, which belongs to the last period of Nyssian

work, the admirable equilibrium of Gregorys thought shines forth in all
its splendour. The profound theological understanding of the unknowability of the divine nature and essence now assumes the warm poetic
tones154 of piety. The divine nature is uncontainable as are the perfumes
151
The term is technical and refers to Trinitarian immanence.

Cfr. A similar enumeration in AdAbl, GNO III/1, 55, 1718. See p. 94.
153
V-.
# 47 &'.
f 4.

42 9 ' , 9 /4, *
3
.

# !2
7 2 -! ,
152

j 4 /
! F
-
G

5
-
#

5 .

/

2, Q
" @ :
; 2` .47 8 E2

4/G .. =
- ! / = 6- ! :
- ! @4,

@ 0, "
5
5 F
4-' 4/
" @ G
..8 H $ + ! - ! 1 .
9+
5 .

-<
+ .E
! $-<! @
.
2 * -.
. Q ?

!, 42, F
! *
5 7
/
,
" " * * /

7 4-! + .
! 2
, .. E / .2'

5 7
2 "!2
#
.

# : /. > + 2!, J ?
!; * /
, " * ; X
5 4/
# * /
* ! +
2!,
j G =
7 &
.42 + + 2

5 !
/

/.
5

W
D + $! -
, Q " * * 7
/
, Q 2
8
"2 2, & = F

- G !
/
/ +
.
+ :
- ! P. 2!, 8 J
4, , ,
f
, -
! 7
5

-<
G
f -
- E #
5 2
/
2 , l = 9 2
+ !
! - ! /
* '
5 2 X ; -
.
(InCant, GNO VI, 36, 1238, 2).

154
One cannot but be in agreement with E. Corsini, when he says of the Nyssian:
140
chapter two
of good wine:155 it cannot be enclosed in concepts and words. But one

cannot disregard the cosmos either, which is impregnated as a vase
with this marvellous perfume, and which, by means of analogy156 and
image, is the path to move from that which is presented to our senses
to that which is not known and cannot be understood.157
It is worth noting that the term 2 is also a key concept in the
InCant, where it appears some eight times, a maximum frequency for
the term, after the DePerf and DeProf. Further, it is a term that returns
almost 100 times in Gregorys writings and in all phases of his production; there is a clear increase in frequency in the later works.158
Thus in 2 the word nds its value anew. The analysis of the
InCant proposed by M. Laird is quite profound for this point:159 from
the reading of numerous passages of this Nyssian work he concludes
that .
4, that is the tendency of the apophatic experience to
Gregorio un poeta e la sua poesia fatta anche di linguaggio simbolico (Arch e

Telos. Lantropologia di Origene e di Gregorio di Nissa. Analisi storico-religiosa. Atti del colloquio,
Milano, 1719 maggio 1979, Milan 1981, p. 229).
155
Remember that Basil had lashed out at the diffused habit of getting drunk at the
end of Lent. Gregory, in context with his more humanistic asceticism, afrms that abstinence from wine is insufcient to guarantee the rectitude of intention, that which counts
is abstinence from sin. He knows as well that abuse does not negate use. For this reason,
in his profound love for creation, he does not hesitate to have recourse to drunkenness
itself in the explanation of his spiritual doctrine (cfr. A. Lallemand, Livresse chez Basile et
Grgoire de Nysse, StPatr 37 (2001) 139). Thus, for Gregory, the perfume of wine itself can
serve as a symbol of the divine nature.
156
A.A. Weiswurm speaks of many points of similarity between St. Gregorys
teaching and that of the Scholastics (A.A. Weiswurm, o.c., p. 188). The analysis of this
author moves in a highly scholastic conceptualization, both for method and perspective. Nevertheless, one cannot negate that there is a fundamental concord between the
Nyssian and Thomasrather than between the Nyssian and the Scholasticson the
connection between ontology, knowledge and language. This is however a very delicate
theme, above all for the numerous polemics on the interpretation of the analogy, in both
Aristotle and Aquinas.
157
For a commentary see: L.F. Mateo-Seco, La cristologa del In Canticum Canticorum de
Gregorio de Nisa, in H. Drobner (ed.), Studien zu Gregor von Nyssa und der Christlichen Sptantike, Leiden 1990, pp. 181182.
158
For this reason as well one cannot but be in agreement with L.F. Mateo-Seco when
he afrms that: Es necesario otorgar an ms importancia al concepto de 2
de Cristo y al lugar que, en el pensamiento niseno, ocupa la economa sacramental
(L.F. Mateo-Seco, Imitacin . . ., p. 621). Perhaps one could also hypothesize that, in the
nal part of the Nyssian work, the growing importance of 2 corresponds to a
diminished frequency of the term !2, in its mystical sense, in the spiritual works of
maturity. This diminishment is noted by Danilou (cfr. J. Danilou, Ltre et le temps . . .,
p. 17).
159
Cfr. M. Laird, Apophasis and Logophasis in Gregory of Nyssas Commentarius in Canticum
Canticorum, StPatr 37 (2001) 126132.
141
open out into words, is a central category to comprehend Gregorys

apophatism. The soul which in faith experiences the union with the
Spousewith the Wordbecomes a vehicle of the Word himself,
in ones words and in ones actions.160 This is, then, .
4: by
virtue of the brides apophatic union with the Word, her discourse
takes on the power and efcacy of the Word itself .161 In Lairds work
the examples are multiplied: the mouth of the spouse lls with the
words of eternal life ( 6 7 $!2
<!7),162 her breasts are
like sources of good teachings,163 of which even her heart is lled.164
The encounter, however apophatic, does not, paradoxically, leave the
bride speechless.165 And this is true not only for the spouse, but also
for Paul166 and for John.167 An encounter which begins as apophatic
[always] nishes as logophatic.168
This means that apophatism is not the negation of word and thought,
as such.169 God is not the negation of thought and word; nevertheless
he is the afrmation that is so strong that it cannot be completely
expressed, but this same supereminence needs to be expressed. In
synthesis: While indeed God cannot be spoken, God yet speaks, and
this divine discourse manifests itself in the discourse and deeds of
Paul, John and the bride.170 Thus 2 involves the whole person,
in thought, word and actions. In this way 2 itself approaches
160
See, for example, InCant, GNO VI, 183, 1011, when the spouse, after the ineffable encounter with the Beloved, turns to the daughters of Jerusalem with words of
love, awakening in them the same reaction as the one the Word had provoked in her.
161
M. Laird, Apophasis . . ., p. 129.
162
163
Cfr. ibidem, 263, 1213.
164
165
166
167
168
169
In the same vein Gregory, deepening the signication and value of the Incarnation, does not hesitate to call Christ the ardent dart of Eros (InCant, GNO VI, 383, 8).
He thus overcomes the opposition between @! and - declaring that intensied
( ) charity (-), in fact, is dened as love (@!) (ibidem, 383, 9). The Nyssian resalta la inseparabilidad de eros y gape, tambin testimonio de la Biblia. Gregorio
declara el eros transformado en gape a modo intensicado y paradojal (A. Meis, El Ocultamiento de Dios en los Comentarios al Cantar de los Cantares de Gregorio de Nisa y Pseudo-Dionisio Areopagita, StPatr 37 (2001) 198). More about @! and - in Gregorys thought can be found
in G. Maspero, article Amor, in L.F. Mateo-SecoG. Maspero, Diccionario de San Gregorio
de Nisa, Burgos 2006, pp. 7382.
170
142
chapter two
2, according to the beautiful interpretation of this category

proposed by W. Jaeger.171
Apophatism is completed in 2, and This imitation implies not
only having the same sentiments as Christ, but also to participate in
the mysteries of his life.172 One must participate in his E2
,173 in his
personal history, in the mystery of the secrets of his heart through faith
and the sacraments. Danilou has clearly demonstrated the unbreakable
union of spiritual life and sacramental life for Gregory.174
Thus it is clear that the apophatic limit is not that which separates
immanence and economy, as Lossky would seem to afrm. Apophatism regards the nature which always remains incomprehensible and
inexpressible, in the profundity and purity of being. On the other hand
we have access to the Person, better yet, to the Persons.175 In Christ the
path has opened which, through the events of his life, his sentiments
and his virtues, in a word, through his heart, leads to the very Trinitarian immanence. In his heart time and eternity are united forever and
man has access to the heart of the Father. In Christ we can love God
with human sentiments, words and thoughts.176
The exclusively negative interpretation of apophatism is all the more
unsatisfying if it is accompanied by the negation of the mysticism of
the imitation of Christ,177 and undervaluing of the role of the humanity
171
Cfr. W. Jaeger, Early Christianity and Greek Paideia, Harvard 1961.

Esta imitacin implica no slo tener los mismos sentimientos que Cristo, sino
participar tambin en los misterios de su vida (L.F. Mateo-Seco, Imitacin . . ., p. 618).
173
The beautiful analysis of T. pidlk does not seem to fully manifest the importance
of E2
, in the Nyssian writings, afrming instead only the centrality of <!. But the
doctrine of 2 shows that it is in the union in E2
with Christ that one has access
to <!. Cfr. T. pidlk, Leternit e il tempo, la zo e il bios, problema dei Padri Cappadoci, Aug.
16 (1976) 107116. The afrmation per un cristiano, lunico valore consiste nella zo
(p. 107) is perhaps too categorical. See also G. Maspero, article Vida, in L.F. MateoSecoG. Maspero, Diccionario de San Gregorio de Nisa, Burgos 2006, pp. 914926.
174
The kisses of InCant are read as symbols of the sacraments, through which the
Christian enters into contact with Christ. Cfr. J. Danilou, Platonisme . . ., pp. 2335.
Chapters 3336 of the OrCat are particularly interesting for this theme.
175
In this sense the Nyssian perspective does not appear in perfect harmony with the
idea of B. Forte that the Father is the eternal Silence (cfr. B. Forte, Trinit come storia.
Saggio sul Dio cristiano, Cinisello Balsamo 1997). Silence regards the nature common to
the three persons, not any one of the Persons alone. In this B. Forte seems to tend to the
pre-Cappadocian state.
176
It is intriguing for this theme to note that in the different languages the name of
God is, many times, unrecognizable, while the names of Christ and Mary are.
177
La mystique de limitation que lon peut trouver en Occident est trangre la
spiritualit orientale (V. Lossky, o.c., p. 41).
172
143
of our Lord.178 Gregorys doctrine does not appear to go in this direction. In fact, for the Nyssian, we must, in the faith and by the grace
given to us by the Holy Spirit, imitate Christ to become images of the
Image.179 And as being Image means being Son, so being images of
the Image means being sons in the Son.180 The theology of the image
shows here its essential aspect, at once Trinitarian and Christological,
since the Image is the Son.181
Apophatism thus means that man must renounce from dening
himself, and, to take up again the ideas of Chapter I Part III, must let
himself be dened by Christ. He must reproduce the intra-Trinitarian
dynamic of the Son who receives all and gives all. This is the movement that the incarnate Son reproduced and communicated to us, in
the economy. Man thus receives everything from outside of himself,
but not in the Barthian sense of the senkrecht von oben, since man, in
the rst place, receives himself. The image to which we are conformed
is not extrinsic since in Christ, the Image is as intimate and intrinsic
as can be thought of man, the image of the Image. For this reason,
in order to become truly men, to enter into the kingdom of heaven,
we must make ourselves as children,182 who receive all and hope all,
who are curious of everything and imitate, and in imitating learn to
be men. Children are the key to apophatism,183 since children, who
178
Le Christ historique, Jsus de Nazareth tel quil apparaissait aux yeux des
tmoins trangers, le Christ extrieur lglise est toujours dpass dans la plnitude de
la rvlation accorde aux vrais tmoins, aux ls de lglise clairs par le Saint-Esprit.
Le culte de lhumanit du Christ est tranger la tradition orientale (Ibidem, p. 242).
179
For this reason the afrmation of Lossky that divinized persons will be images of
the spirit seems distant from Gregory: Car le Saint-Esprit est lonction royale reposant
sur le Christ et sur tous les chrtiens appels rgner avec Lui dans le sicle futur.
Cest alors que cette Personne divine inconnue, nayant pas son image dans une autre
hypostase, se manifestera dans les personnes dies: car la multitude des saints sera son
image (Ibidem, p. 169). Further, there is a dangerous economic inversion of the Trinitarian order, the importance of which will be manifested in the next chapter.
180
Another ambiguous distinction of Lossky is that of afrming, in the Church, the
existence of a larger circle of sons of God, and a more restricted one, that of the saints
(cfr. ibidem, p. 175): the intention of Lossky is certainly good, but is there another way of
being saints other than that of being sons of God?
181
B. Salmona also moves in this context; he afrms the centrality of the relationship
of God-man in Nyssian thought: it is a relationship constitutive of man himself, since
nel Logos la trasparenza di Dio, cos come nel logos la trasparenza delluomo (B. Salmona,
Logos come trasparenza in Gregorio di Nissa, in H. DrobnerCh. Klock (dir), Studien zu
Gregor von Nyssa und der Christlichen Sptantike, Leiden 1990, p. 165).
182
Cfr. Mk 10.14 and Mt 19.14.
183
Josemara Escriv, a spiritual author of the last century, loved to preach the
144
chapter two
little by little learn to speak and act, know how, in their games, to see
the reality beyond the image. For this same reason the Virginthe
Motheris essential for the understanding of apophatism. She who
receives all and gives all, and who pronounces the let it be done to me
according to your word,184 in which the logical word and ontological Word
correspond and are united forever.
In this sense to see is to not see. We are dealing with a radical
renunciation of autonomy, on the ontological level and not only on
the cognitive level.185 Apophatism is, in its most profound essence,
conversion. One cannot understand apophatism only gnoseologically.
This would be a totally extraneous idea to the profoundly ontological thought that forms Gregorys mind, both by the Judeo-Christian
heritage186 and Neoplatonic culture. Apophatism is understood only in
relation to the Trinity and the coordination of the three Persons. One
sees oneself in the Trinity, in the Son: seeing oneself through letting
oneself be synergetically immersed in the internal ux of Trinitarian
love and knowledge.
So the mystery is resplendent in all of its ontological depth, which
proceeds and founds the gnoseological mystery.187 The mystery is a
reality, it is the Reality, from which we must start. The Mystery is source
of knowledge.188 Thus apophatism is essentially characterized also by
necessity that: Ours should be the piety of children and the sure doctrine of theologians. ( Josemara Escriv de Balaguer, Christ is passing by, New York 1974, n. 10).
184
Lk 1.38.
185
It seems to me that this escapes Ch. Apostolopoulos, when, commenting Gregorys
9 P2 " * * < # (InEccl, GNO V, 400, 21) he afrms: Die Modernitt Gregors besteht eigentlich darin, dass das Streben selber (qua unendlich suchende
Bewegung) zum Erstrebten wird (Ch. Apostolopoulos, AORISTON. Anmerkungen zur
Vorstellung vom Unbestimmten-Unendlichen der gttlichen Natur bei Gregor von Nyssa, StPatr
37 (2001) 10). It is not a radical voluntarism, in harmony with the modern existential
categories, but exactly the opposite: an abandonment to the attraction of God, and
abandonment to the attraction of his inexhaustible ontological depth, a letting oneself
be dened in the deepest recesses of ones own being, in the most absolute renunciation
of autonomy.
186
Cfr. J. Danilou, Ltre et le temps . . ., pp. viiviii.
187
This is a truth that modernity in its tension towards autonomy has often forgotten. And yet the difference between the impulse to jump a wall, behind which there is a
beautiful garden (which is not merely psychological tension towards going beyond our
limits), and the fear that is experienced in an obscure room is phenomenologically evident. The luminous shadows of the Nyssian are thus like the obscure shadows of the
parents room, in which the child does not cry, since it perceives the presence and being
of his father and mother.
188
B. Forte shows well the difference that separates the Latin revelatio and the Greek

-.' from the German Offenbarung. The rst two indicate in the prex, the
145
a positive aspect and it can be said that all of theology is moved by

the attraction of the heart of Christ, which unites us and attracts us
to the Mystery: the Mystery of his Person.189
The positive and negatives aspects are inseparable: the cross distinguishes190 and unites. Thus, it is true that the four Calcedonian adverbs,
already present in nuce in the Gregorian work,191 have an apophatic
character, as Lossky rightly notes,192 but they can never be afrmed
individually, they need to be taken together, all four at once. This is
an afrmation, and a very strong one, since even mathematically, a
double negative sign has as product a positive sign. The human and
divine are always united, in Christ, perfect God and perfect man. So
even the word and thought are covered, in time, with eternity. For this
reason the intuition of V. Zielinsky, an Orthodox, is profound, when
he notes that in Orthodoxy the dogmas have only a protective role in
regard to heresies,193 while in the Catholic Church they have also a
latreutic and gloricatory function which Orthodoxy assigns only to the
liturgy.194 The dogmas have thus, for the Occident, a similar function
to that of Icons in the Orient. For the dogma does not cut into the
mystery, it is limited to formulating it exactly, offering it to the silence
of adoration.
unveiling that is repeated and does not exhaust the revealed mystery. The German term
on the other hand indicates total unveiling, the exhausting of the mystery, and has a
more gnoseological than ontological connotation (cfr. B. Forte, El Espritu Santo y Jess
de Nazaret, ScrTh 30 (1998) 816).
189
It appears that M. Zupis afrmation about Nyssian apophatism goes in this direction: Listanza metasica di comprendere la sostanza si trasmuta cos in meraviglia
di fronte allimpalpabile presenza dellessere: il trapassare dellessere da oggetto a
soggetto, da sostanza a volto, da essenza ad inter-esse; lesito mistico della losoa
di Gregorio di Nissa, il trapasso dalla comprensione alla concezione, dalla costruzione
logica al tocco interiore, dallistanza di emancipazione al sentimento di appartenenza,
dalla fatica del concetto al riposo della contemplazione; altres lesito pragmatico della
dottrina del Nisseno, il trapasso dalla teoria alla prassi, dai dgmata allazione liturgica, dalla dottrina allinvocazione e alla preghiera (M. Zupi (Ed.), Gregorio di Nissa: Le
belle ascese, Padua 2001, p. 315).
190
Il ny a pas dapophatisme chrtien qui ne se fonde sur lantinomie rvlatrice de
la Croix ( J. Garrigues, Thologie . . ., p. 441).
191
Gregory has recourse, in his writings, to all the four adjectives from which the Calcedonian adverbs are derived (/
,
, 2
, 3
), in both
Christological and Trinitarian contexts (cfr. the corresponding terms in F. Mann, Lexicon
Gregorianum, I, Leiden 1999).
192
Cfr. V. Lossky, o.c., p. 139.
193
Cfr. the afrmations of Lossky in note 3 of this chapter.
194
Cfr. V. Zielinsky, Le mystre de Marie, source dunit, NRT 121 (1999) 90.
146
chapter two
To conclude, the marvel and perfection of Gregorys theology manifest themselves clearly in the theme of apophatism.195 The anthropological aspect of the theology of the image and the cognitive aspect
of the theology of name are united and fuse together in the depths of
Trinitarian theology and immanence. Gregorys apophatism is thus a
no to whoever would like to reach God directly, attacking with his own
reason the very eternal and innite nature. At the same time apophatism
is a yes, a strong and undeniable afrmation that the only possibility to
reach God is Christ. The path is the Person. The way is history.
This analysis was started with the statement that being precedes the
word: the value of language and numbers is founded in being, in reality.
Then the AdAbl was taken into consideration, in which Gregory presents
both the negative and positive aspects of apophatism, negating the possibility to understand nature and turning the discussion from being to the
mode of being, that is from nature to Person. The apophatic conne is
thus not placed between immanence and economy, but one has access to
the Persons themselves, in their intra-Trinitarian intimacy. For this reason, in a rst moment, the impossibility to directly approach the divine
nature was studied, highlighting the fact that even created naturein its
essenceremains beyond the possibilities of the human intellect. In a
second moment the role of the Nyssian in the formation of the concept
of person was noted. From the Trinitarian foundation for the person the
discourse moved to the theology of name and to the accomplishment
of apophatism in its eminently positive aspect through the 2 of
Christ, perfect in his humanity and divinity. Thanks to him and to the
mysteries of his life, Christianity is the imitation of the divine nature.
To nish it is interesting to consider a passage of CE I, in which
Gregory afrms that, only if one professes the fundamental truth
that the Son has a divine nature without any confusion ( 7 2
-
4/!), can one then discover the harmony of truth,
understanding that our Lord is the Creator of everything, King of the
universe, who governs not by arbitrary force, but by his superior nature.
Thus it is seen that the First Principle is not divided into distinct rst
principles, by any substantial distinction, but that the Divinity, Principle
and Power is unique:
195
A good article that presents Nyssian apophatism in connection with anthropology
and innite progress, including its positive aspect as well, is: D.F. Duclow, Gregory of
Nyssa and Nicholas of Cusa: Innity, Anthropology and the Via Negativa, DR 92 (1974) 102109.
147
Since the Divinity is contemplated in the symphony of all that is similar

( ; + 1
2! 4!2`) and guides the mind from similar to similar,
in such a way that the Principle of all things, that is the Lord, be resplendent in souls through the work of the Holy Spiritfor it is impossible that
anyone contemplate the Lord Jesus except in the Holy Spirit, as the Apostle
says;196 then, through () the Lord, who is the Principle of all things,
we nd the totality of that principle that is beyond () every Principle, that is the God of the universe. For it is not possible that anyone
reach the contemplation of the archetypal Good in another way than
[how it is] manifested in the image of the Invisible (cfr. Col 1.15).197
Thus apophatism starts from the unique divine nature, innitely superior
to every human mind. The movement changes towards Christ: in he
who is the personied image of the Father, one can have access from
similar to similar to the knowledge of the First person himself. But as
the Father cannot be contemplated in another mode than in the Son,
so there is no other way to contemplate the Son except in the Holy Spirit.
The apophatic dynamic is at once Trinitarian and Christological. One
cannot skip any passage. One says no to the pretexts of the arrogant
reason, which wishes to grab at the divine nature, so that reason itself
may submit to faith and apply itself to contemplation of the incarnate
Word, and is thus enabled to have part in that same divine nature that
it wished, in a rst moment, to usurp.
Therefore the discussion of apophatismafter the present more
properly Christological momentis nalized in a natural way through
the study of Nyssian pneumatology.
196
1 Cor 12.3.
; + 1
2! 4!2` 7
!

5 1
2
*
* Q

-

/, > 7 - ! 7, k 1 /
,

5 d2
/
# ' # ..
/ (
..! !7 *
/

5, $ / d2, 3 4 1
.
),
5 2
,
Q 9 - ! , 7 - 7 9# &
, k 1
- ! G
" ..! *
* !7,
; $
5
-
4
. (CE I, GNO I, 179, 19180, 10).
197
CHAPTER THREE
THE SPIRIT AND UNITY

I. Introduction
a. East and West
In order to understand the theological value of the last part of the
AdAbl it is necessary to draw out a synthetic sketch of the history of
Trinitarian dogma and the differences of the Eastern and Western
approaches.1
Latin Theology concentrated on the economic aspect, due to its
confrontation with modalism, and from the beginning moved in a linear
schema (dispositio, ), in which the three Persons are united one to
another in consubstantiality: the monarchy can only be expressed in this
schema, adverbially2 ( principaliter). The Latin procedere does not terminologically distinguish the two processions, and the whole construction
implies, from the beginning, a true role of the Son in the procession
of the Holy Spirit. As will be seen, Pope Dionysius introduced for the
rst time a circular schema, in which the processions appear as the
expression of a relation. The procession of the Holy Spirit assumes,
thus, the role of ultimate condition of the consubstantial reciprocity
of the Trinity, being its completion and seal.3
The Latin world had to confront an Arianism that was much less
radical than that which Eunomius professed in the East. This included
the metaphysical negation of Trinitarian consubstantiality. In order
to contrast the Neoplatonic inuence and the idea of hierarchical
1
This chapter supports L. Ayres argument that distinctions between east and
west Greek and Latin are inadequate and misleading when used to categorize
pro-Nicene theologies (L. Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy . . ., p. 345).
2
The rst to use the adverb principaliter is Tertullian: si vero et lius fuerit ei cuius
monarchia sit, non statim dividi eam et monarchiam esse desinere si particeps eius adsumatur et lius, sed proinde illius esse principaliter a quo communicatur in lium, et dum
illius est proinde monarchiam esse quae a duobus tam unitis continetur. (Tertullian,
Adversus Praxean III, 3; CCSL 2, p. 1162)
3
Cfr. Garrigues, Procession et ekporse du Saint Esprit. Discernement de la tradition et rception
oecumnique, Ist. 17 (1972) 352.
150
chapter three
participation, the Cappadocian Fathers thus found themselves obliged

to confess in God a personal multiplicity that was irreducible to the level
of the essence: the Hypostasis. The battle for orthodoxy thus moved
to the sphere of Trinitarian immanence.
The Arianism that menaced the Latin world was, on the other hand,
less metaphysical and limited itself to negate the divinity of the Son
and of the Spirit without moving beyond the economic sphere. For this
reason the Western reection had to deepen the connection between
immanence and economy, which was helped by the very terminological
ambivalence of the verb procedere.4 It is in this context that Ambrose of
Milan will for the rst time use the formula Spiritus procedit a Patre et Filio.5
It is thus clear that Augustine was not the inventor of the Filioque, as
is often said.6 Rather, he knew how to synthesize many elements that
4
Only Hilary of Poitiers, due to his direct knowledge of the Oriental world, uses
procedere for the procession of the Holy Spirit alone. He seeks to express the procession
of the Son with the concept of reception (see Hilary of Poitiers, De Trinitate 8, 20;
PL 10, 251A).
5
Ambrose of Milan, De Spiritu Sancto I, 11; CSEL 79, p. 67, 44.
6
The inexactitudes, due to polemical short-sightedness and lack of knowledge, are
multiplied in the presentations of the question of the Filioque, those four syllables to
which so many painful discussions have been attached. For example, when speaking of
a Latin addition to the Niceo-Constantinopolitan Symbol, one is abstracted from the
historical fact that the second ecumenical Council of 381 was carried out without any
Western representation (not even of Papal legates), due to the isolation imposed by the
Arian persecution of the emperor Valens. Only one year later did Rome recognize it as
ecumenical, due to the impossibility of reuniting a unique council. Latin theology had
already developed the idea of the Filioque. Leo the Great used the ab ubtroque in one of
his letters to a Spanish bishop (PL 54, 680681), in 447, which was then proclaimed in
the anti-Pricillian council of the Church in Spain (DS 188) held the same year. Further
it is professed, still in the 5th century, in the Quicumque (or Athanasian, DS 75) symbol.
Thus the Filioque was rst professed against Pricillianist modalism before being professed
against the Arians, as in the later Council of Toledo. Therefore the proclamation of
the Filioque preceded that of the Symbol of Constantinople, that the Latins knew only
at Cahlcedon, in 451 (at Ephesus only the Nicene creed was read). Between the 6th
and 8th centuries, the ab ubtroque rapidly spread in all the Western world, so much
so as to be unanimously recognized when, in the 9th century, the question became
a polemical argument and political instrument with Charlemagne and Photius (Cfr.
J. Garrigues, Procession . . ., pp. 361363). One should also note, as B. Bolotov wrote
who falsely afrms that the only authority for the Filioque is that of Augustinethat the
Eastern Fathers did not object to the Western position and did not break communion
with the Western Fathers (theses nn. 1425 in B. Bolotov, Thses sur le Filioque, Ist.
17 (1972) 287288). A deep and extensive analysis of the history of the controversy is
P. Gemeinhardt, Die Filioque-Kontroverse zwischen Ost- und Westkirche im Frhmittelalter, New
York 2002. This author points out that Photius position demanded a narrowing of
the Cappadocian Trinitarian doctrine, in particular of Gregory of Nyssas understanding of the immanent mediation of the Son: Das kappadozische Verstndnis der Trinitt
wurde dahingehend verengt, dass etwa die tastenden Versuche Gregors von Nyssa, die
the spirit and unity
151
were already found in the Latin Tradition. Thus he would take up and
develop Tertullians principaliter, using it in connection with communiter.7
The expression of the monarchy can only be then, adverbial and not
verbal as in the East.
The Cappadocian Fathers reached the summit of Trinitarian reection, with the distinction, on the level of the most pure immanence,
between essence and hypostasis. But this did not lead the theology of
Gregory of Nyssa, who was the youngest and could thus develop even
further his reection, to refute the principle of Trinitarian order or the
linear schema, despite the fact that these could be interpreted in favour
of a subordinationist position in the categories of Eunomian thought.
Rather, it is precisely the Nyssian who developed all of his theology
and pneumatology based upon the connection between immanence and
economy. His system thus appears extremely balanced and complete:
perfect in the penetration of the immanent intimacy of the Trinity,
and at the same time, open to the economic dimension, that the Spirit
attracts to divine communion.8
b. Gregory
For this reason Gregorys pneumatology is one of the highest moment of
his theological reection. W. Jaeger held it as the eminent expression of
Christian humanism, destined to culminate in sanctity, which has the
Holy Spirit as its principle.9 But, beyond the admirable equilibrium that
heilgeschichtlichen Beziehungen zwischen Sohn und Geist auch fr die ewig-gttliche
Dimension (im Sinne einer
des Sohnes) auszuwerten, kategorisch unterbunden
wurden (p. 550). The theological openness of the Trinitarian hermeneutic prior to the
controversy is demonstrated by the Syriac reception of the Nicean faith in the Synod
of Seleukia in 410: the symbol there formulated is characterised by the statement that
the Spirit is from the Father and from the Son (cfr. P. Bruns, Bemerkungen zur Rezeption des
Nicaenums in der ostsyrischen Kirche, AHC 32 (2000) 122).
7
Pater enim solus non est de alio, ideo solus appellatur ingenitus, non quidem in
Scripturis sed in consuetudine disputantium et de re tanta sermonem qualem ualuerint
proferentium. Filius autem de patre natus est, et Spiritus Sanctus de patre principaliter, et
ipso sine ullo interuallo temporis dante, communiter de utroque procedit. (Augustine of
Hippo, De Trinitate XV, 26, 47; CCSL 50/1, pp. 528529)
8
B. Bolotov, unconsciously, founds his argument principally in Nyssian texts, among
which the AdAbl has a central role: he constructs his argument principally with the texts
of Basil and Gregory, but for Basil he cites Ep 38, which is now recognized as a Nyssian
work (see: R. Hbner, Gregor von Nyssa als Verfasser der sog. ep. 38 des Basilius. Zum unterschiedlichen Verstndnis der Ousia bei den Kappadoziern Brdern, in J. FontaineC. Kannengiesser (edd.), Epektasis: Mlanges patristiques offerts au Card. J. Danilou, Beauchesne 1972,
pp. 463490).
9
Cfr. W. Jaeger, Gregor von Nyssas Lehre vom Heiligen Geist. (H. Drrie Ed.), Leiden 1966,
152
chapter three
characterizes the Nyssian in the maturity of his Trinitarian thought,

it is necessary to consider the properly historical value of his doctrine.
For it is highly probable that at Constantinople, in 381, not only was
Gregory the undisputed theological guide of the bishops who called
upon the Cappadocian tradition, based upon the elaboration of his
brother Basilwho was already dead by the end of 378but that the
Nyssian had a far more ofcial role than that attributed to him by
many modern historians.10
More than being the most important theologian of the majority and
having pronounced the praise of Meletius, Gregory is mentioned, along
with Helladius of Caesarea and Otreius of Melitene, as the guarantor
of the rule of faith for the diocese of Pontus by the decree of Theodosius11 for the execution of the council, dated June 30th, 381. This,
according to W. Jaeger, was the consecration of the ofcial role played by
the Nyssian in the preceding months.12 J. Danilou notes that Helladius
and Otreius were representing important metropolitan Episcopal sees
of their provinces, while Nyssa was simply a small village. Gregorys
authority must then have been eminently theological.13
Other information seems to suggest that the Nyssian was the author
of the Symbol itself.14 Nicephorus Callistus, Byzantine historian of the
14th century, afrms it explicitly.15 The late date of the author makes
the testimony less than certain, but it is also impossible to think that
Nicephorus did not receive the information from one of his sources.
Although the information has been disputed by some modern
historians, Jaeger responds to every criticism,16 well enough to permit
J. Danilou to conclude: It is thus completely possible that Gregory
pp. 14. Y. Congar says on this theme, that Gregory had developed a true anthropologie
thologale: la formation de lhomme chrtien (morphsis), sa perfection (teleisis), dont le
Christ est le modle, sont luvre de lEsprit santicateur (Y. Congar, Je crois en lEsprit
Saint, III, Paris 1980, p. 59).
10
Cfr. J. Danilou, Bulletin dhistoire des origines chrtiennes, RSR 55 (1967) 116.
11
The same emperor would invite Gregory to celebrate the funeral rites for his
daughter Pulcheria in 383 and his wife Flaccilla in 385.
12
W. Jaeger, o.c., p. 59.
13
Cfr. J. Danilou, Bulletin . . ., p. 117.
14
See E.D. Moutsoulas, , Athens 1997, p. 45. For the specic
contribution of Gregory to the Council of Constantinople see the article, by the same
author,
, Theol(A) 55 (1984) 384
401. In this last work he denes the role of the Nyssian as !, "
#$%

& in respect to that of Gregory Nazianzen, held in general to be the
theological soul of the Council.
15
Nicephorus Callistus, '!
(
XII, 13; PG 146, 784B.
16
W. Jaeger, o.c., pp. 5177.
153
of Nyssa is the author of the Symbol of Constantinople.17 The more

recent analysis by M.A.G. Haykin has conrmed this result.18
II. The Ad Ablabium
In the light of these historico-theological premises, we can thus undertake the analysis of the last part of the AdAbl. The principle text is as
follows:
If then one will falsely accuse the reasoning to present a certain mixture
( ) of the hypostases and a twisting by the fact of not accepting the
difference according to nature, we will respond to this accusation that,
afrming the absence of the diversity of nature, we do not negate the
difference according to that which causes and that which is caused. And
we can conceive that the one is distinguished from the other uniquely
since we believe that the one is that which causes and the other that
which is derived from the cause. And in that which is originated from a
cause we conceive yet another difference: one thing it is, in fact, to be
immediately from the rst () * $&), another to be through (+)
that which is immediately ($,-) from the rst. In this way the being
Only Begotten remains incontestably in the Son and there is no doubt
that the Spirit is from the Father, since the mediation of the Son (. *
/*
) maintains in Him the being of Only Begotten and does
not exclude the Spirit from the natural relation with the Father.19
This passage has an enormous importance in the history of theology

and dogma: there are no publications on the question of the Filioque,
or on the development of Trinitarian doctrine in the patristic period,
that do not cite it.
17
Il est donc tout fait possible que Grgoire de Nysse soit lauteur du Symbole de
Constantinople ( J. Danilou, Bulletin . . ., p. 118).
18
Thus, it is not at all improbable that Gregory of Nyssa was the author of the
reserved pneumatological statement of the creed issued by the Council of Constantinople. (M.A.G. Haykin, The Spirit of God: the exegesis of 1 and 2 Corinthians in the pneumatomachian controversy of the fourth century, Leiden 1994, p. 201). See pp. 199201.
19
0 1 2
3 ! 4 ) * 1,5

+ 2
2+
+ - 6$%

!

7
* $ .

$! 5
18%, : 3 $
!!
. 2% !*
+ 3
#

3
2+ ; 5
, ) < =
5
3 > *
?1

!
@, A 3 B
# $ C
3 B ) *
D
*
)

E $! F!!
2+ )*D 3 B + $,- ) * $&,
3 B + * $,- ) * $&, G
3 B
2 @! )$ * /*
1,
3 ) * $
3 C
3 $*
2@!!, . * /*

;A 3 B 2!

3 $*
. 2. $3 3 $
1
,1%
$ . (AdAbl, GNO III/1, 55, 2156, 10).
154
chapter three
Gregory had started from the immanent afrmation of

;
,
H 6$, which places the problem of how to apply the same
distinction to man. Then the reasoning moved, little by little, towards
the economy, treating the coordination of activity, to thus show the
consubstantiality of the three Persons. At this point, after having strongly
afrmed the unity, Gregory must defend himself, still on the level of
pure theology,20 from the possible accusation of confusing the Persons,
to avoid anyone attempting to accuse him of Sabellianism.21
Gregorys argument is based on the concept of cause (

): even in
the Trinity there is a distinction between caused and uncaused. Only the
Father is absolutely without cause. The reasoning moves then, from the
Monarchy and is constructed in such a way so as to never abandon
this elementary principle. Son and Spirit are united and indistinct in
this rst moment of analysis.
The Nyssian continues with the second step, necessary to reach the
Trinity of Persons: there is a second distinction between that which is
immediately from the cause, the Son, and that which is caused mediately,
the Spirit, through the Son himself. Thus one arrives at the Trinity of
Persons. This construction places the Son at the center of the immanent
dynamic and reproduces in theology the economic movement of ) *
$
3 + * /* $3 3 $*
.22 Athanasius had already started
from the
of the Son and, at least implicitly, also Basil.23 The
proper characteristic of the Nyssian is the extensive use of this category,
synthetically expressed with the preposition .24
This is the summit of the whole treatise, and the polemical preoccupation, which can be aroused by the possible relationships between
20
Dass es sich hier nicht um aussergttliche, sondern immanente Beziehungen handelt, ergibt der Kontext. (M. Gomes de Castro, Die Trinittslehre des Gregor von Nyssa,
Freiburg 1938, p. 111)
21
This is a heretical anti-Trinitarian doctrine founded by Sabellius of Libya, spread
to Rome between 210 and 240. God would be the only invisible Person (Monad) who
assumes different names according to different names in which he manifests himself:
as Creator of the world he is Word, as revealed in the Old Testament he is Father, in
the Incarnation he is Son, as sanctier in the work of illumination of the Apostles he
is Holy Spirit.
22
AdAbl, GNO III/1, 48, 2324.
23
See Athanasius, Epistulae quattuor ad Serapionem I, PG 26, 577 and Basil of Caesarea,
De Spiritu Sancto, 17; SC 17, pp. 188190.
24
Cfr. M. Gomes de Castro, o.c., p. 112. For Gregorys sources see the commentary on the symbol of Gregory Thaumaturgus (that the Nyssian transmits in DeVita) in
A. Aranda, Estudios de pneumatologa, Pamplona 1985, pp. 149154.
155
the exposed doctrine with that of the Filioque,25 can not and should
not deviate the attention from the central and most profound point, of
both the treatise and the question of the Filioque:26 Trinitarian economy
and immanence are in continuity and the amorous or agapic dynamic,
in the language of B. Mondin,27 of the intimacy of the three Persons
continues in the temporal action in the cosmos. God loves as he is, and
that is in a Trinitarian manner.
The argument of the

is already present in Origen.28 One could
also hold the Alexandrian as the father of the + * /*, as M.A.
Orphanos afrms.29 It is Origen who rst maintains the necessity of
a certain 1generationof the Spirit through the Son, to avoid
depriving him of his hypostatic individuality and to protect the Father
as the only unbegotten.30 Nevertheless, as often happens, the Nyssian
doctrine protects and puries the Origenistic intuition, giving it measure,
equilibrium and depth. In this case, for example, the strength of the
principle of
;
, H 6$ makes it clearly impossible
to think of any form of subordinationism.
Gregory distinguishes with great attention, in fact, the proposed
reasoning from that which leads to consubstantiality:
And saying cause and from the cause (
#
)
), we do not
designate with these names a naturein fact, one could not adopt the
25
One thinks of the following text of Thomas Aquinas: Praeterea, inter dare plenitudinem Divinitatis et non accipere, et accipere et non dare, medium est dare et accipere. Dare autem plenitudinem Divinitatis et non accipere, pertinet ad personam Patris;
accipere vero et non dare, pertinet ad personam Spiritus Sancti. Oportet ergo esse tertiam personam, quae plenitudinem Divinitatis et det et accipiat; et haec est persona
Filii. Sunt ergo tres personae in divinis. (Thomas Aquinas, De Potentia, q. 9, a. 9, s.c. 6)
26
For a historical introduction to the question, see Y. Congar, Je crois . . ., pp. 24180
and B. Bobrinskoy, Le Mystre de la Trinit, Paris 1986, pp. 283305.
27
Cfr. B. Mondin, La Trinit mistero damore: trattato di teologia trinitaria, Bologna 1993.
28
I
,

J ) K

*

;3 /3 ,
7 * 5*,
* * 2 /* ,.5 ,, L ,M7 N 3 O $*

*
;* P 6$, ; 3 C
!!+
23 C

!3

$Q $* ,
;3 H ,
+ , -
$ 1% KH R* )$-. (Origen, Commentarii in Evangelium Joannis II, 10,
76, 17; SC 120, p. 256). The Nazianzen uses this category: cfr. Gregory Nazianzen,
Oratio 20: De dogmate et constitutione episcoporum, 7; SC 270, pp. 7072 and Oratio 31: De
Spiritu Sancto, 14; SC 250, p. 302.
29
M.A. Orphanos, The Procession of the Holy Spirit: according to Certain Greek Fathers,
Theol(A) 50 (1979) 768.
30
S
1
$
+ T , + * ! $

, 3
$*
3 O 1

3 1
;3 C
6$!
@
,
7%
B ;
+
62
* U $
?1
$
+ 3 $
1

3 /D (Origen, Commentarii in Evangelium Joannis II, 10, 74, 15; SC 120, p. 254).
156
chapter three
same explanation for a cause and for a naturebut we explain the difference according to the mode of being (
+ 3 $V C
). For, saying that
the one is in a caused mode (

-), while the other is without cause
(F

), we do not divide the nature according to the understanding of the cause (A
+ 3
# !=), but we only demonstrate that
neither is the Son without generation nor is the Father by generation. It
is rst necessary that we believe something is (C
), and only then do
we interrogate how that in which we have believed is ($- )). Different,
then, is it to say what it is ( )) from saying how it is ($- )). So,
saying that something is without generation, one exposes how it is, but,
with those words, one does not express what it is as well. And, in fact, if
you asked a farmer about a tree whether it was planted or if it grew on
its own, and he responded either that the tree was not planted or that
it came from a seedling, did he perhaps with the response explain the
nature to you? Or instead, saying only how it is, did he not leave obscure
and unexplained the discourse on the nature? So, also here, in learning
that He is without generation, have we learned to think as is tting that
He is, but we have not understood through the word that what He is.
Therefore, afrming in the Holy Trinity such a distinction, so as to believe
that one thing is that which is cause and another that which is from the
cause, we will not any longer be able to be accused of confusing in the
communion of nature the relationship of the hypostases.31
That there are two distinct levels is clearly stated: one of nature and
another of relation, of the ,1. The nature remains absolutely ineffable, in this way, as was seen in the preceding chapter, turning attention
back to the ,1 itself.
The presence of a cosmological parallel in the second part of the
passage is worth noting. The same discourse is valid for a tree: a farmer
can only say how it came forth, but not what it is. Once again the
ontological depth of Nyssian thought is manifested, and being escapes
31
W# B
)
!1 ;, 2 + % - X%

(;B + 3
;3 F

2% $ !), !!+
+ 3 $V
C

2+ )5
. $ + 3 B

- 3 B F

C

;, 2 A
+ 3
# != ,%
, !!+ 3 \ 3 /3
\% C
\ 3 $
1
+ \% )5
. $ B KQ C

$ )$
,
$- ) 3 $$1 $
5
D F!!
] * )
F!! * $- ) !. 3 ] \% C
!1,
$- 1 ) 6$ 5
, 1 ) P 2%P
^ ;
.
+
$ 1 3 _&
3 %, # 23 #
;% ) , B
$
` 2 C
3 1 ` ) 2
, a
2 +
. $ % )
3 $- ) $V ` F !
\
3 . 2% $1!$ !b J%
)
*5
1
5 :$% B
;3
C
$\ H ),5 , :, 1 ) + . 2%. ; _
. ]

2+ )$ . U
!1, 4 3 B
# 3 B )

C
$, ;1 c ) A A . 2% 3 - 6$% ! \

5 . (AdAbl, GNO III/1, 56, 1157, 7).
157
the context of words. Nevertheless words are not useless, since they can
express the how of this reality. This is not a form of skepticism, but
rather the full awareness of the profundity of being. Apophatism, in a
wider sense, does not only regard God, but every being. In the preceding
chapter, the role played by the Nyssian in the passage from a negative
conception of the person to a positive one was already highlighted: he
continually returns to the fundamental distinction between that which
is common in the Trinity and in every being, which remains indenable, and that which is proper, which can be expressed adverbially, as
the particular mode of being.32
It is necessary to point out that the structure itself of the AdAbl
indicates, without a shadow of a doubt, that the + * /* refers
to the Trinitarian immanence. Gregory, as it has been noted already, is
distinguishing the three Persons, to defend himself from the accusation
of confusing them. It is thus impossible to agree with M.A. Orphanos,
when he limits Gregorys only to the energetic realm.33
Gregory is attentive to separate the concept of cause from temporal categories. For this reason, at the end of the rst book of the CE,
in the process of distinguishing the three Persons in the Trinitarian
immanence, always based on the

, he says:
For as the Son is conjoined to the Father, and although having being from
him, he is not inferior to him according to substance, so in his turn the
Holy Spirit is united to the Only Begotten, who is considered before the
hypostasis of the Spirit only from the point of view of the principle of
the cause: there is not space for temporal extensions in eternal life. In
this manner, excluding the principle of the cause, the Holy Trinity is in
no discord (2&%) from itself.34
Once again stand out the centrality of the Trinitarian order and the
afrmation that the unique distinction possible in the Trinity is the
double distinction that is based in the cause.35
32
The importance of the theme for contemporary theology has been manifested in
P.M. Collins, Trinitarian Theology West and East, Oxford 2001.
33
Cfr. M.A. Orphanos, The Procession of the Holy Spirit: according to Certain Greek Fathers,
Theol(A) 51 (1980) 95.
34
4 + $
A $
/3
3 )
;* C
N,% ;, 6 7
+
J$
, J% $!
* * N,
3 $*
3 O, )$ d ^

+ 3 .

! $5%1 . * $
6$%D
/ B
,
$

)$ . $
% 7%. ,&
; N,. G * ! .

6$^ 1 ) U

$3 ?
2&% N,. (CE I,
GNO I, 224, 23225, 5).

35
It is particularly interesting to compare this passage of the AdAbl with the
afrmation of Augustine: Pater ergo principium non de principio; Filius principium
158
chapter three
III. The Cause
The value of the text of the AdAbl is even more manifest if placed in
parallel with the following passage, from the end of the third homily
of the DeOrDom:
The proper of the Father is to be without cause. But it is not possible to
recognize this property in the Son and in the Spirit. For the Son comes
from the Father, as the Scripture says, and the Spirit proceeds from God
and from the Father () * 5*
$
+ * $
3 )$
)
(cfr. Jn 16.2728 and Jn 15.26). But as being without a cause, which is
exclusive to the Father, cannot be applied to the Son and to the Spirit,
in the same way the inverse, to be from a cause, which is proper to the
Son and the Spirit, is not naturally attributed to the Father. And since
it is common to the Son and the Spirit to not be without generation,
so that a certain confusion not be maintained regarding the subject, it
is necessary to nd another distinction that does not generate confusion
in their properties, so that that which is common be kept safe, and that
which is proper be not confused. For the Sacred Scripture says that the
Only Begotten Son [comes] from the Father and the afrmation denes
the property. But it is also said that the Holy Spirit is from the Father, as
it is also attested that he is from the Son () * $
3 !1
,
*
/* C
$
H
).36 It says, in fact, If anyone has not the Spirit of
Christ, he does not belong to him.37 Therefore the Spirit who is from God is
also the Spirit of Christ. Instead the Son, who is from God, is not from
the Spirit and is not said to be from the Spirit. And one cannot invert
this relational succession (, !5
) so as to be able to indifferently invert with analysis the afrmation, and, as we say that the Spirit
is of Christ, thus call Christ [as if he were] of the Spirit. Since, then,
this property distinguishes clearly and without confusion the one from
the other, while the identity in activity witnesses to the commonness of
nature, the orthodox conception of the Divinity is reinforced from both
afrmations, so that the Trinity is enumerated in the Persons and it is
not disjointed into parts of different nature.38
de principio: sed utrumque simul, non duo, sed unum principium; sicut Pater Deus et
Filius Deus, ambo autem simul non duo dii, sed unus Deus. Nec Spiritum Sanctum ab
utroque procedentem negabo esse principium: sed haec tria simul sicut unum Deum,
ita unum dico esse principium. (Augustine, Contra Maximinum II, 17, 4; PL 42, 784D
785A). That which follows can be considered an attempt to penetrate the correspondence and proper originality of these texts. Garrigues is to be credited with bringing the
two texts together: cfr. J. Garrigues, Procession . . ., p. 358.
36
The text is philologically complex, see below.
37
Rm 8.9.
38
e * $
3 3 )
C
. f* ; N H )$ * /*
*
$
: + /3 ) * $
3 ).!5,
5& 2 K
2,
3 $*
) * 5*
$
+ * $
3 )$
. g!! G$ 3 F

C
,
* $
3 h, A /A
A $
)2
5.
;

, J% 3 N$
! 3
159
It is particularly interesting to read this passage in the context of a commentary to the AdAbl, since it repeats here the coupling of the doctrine of
unity in activity, considered as a path to reach the unique nature, with the
doctrine of personal distinction, which is based in the category of cause.
The connection between the Trinitarian order, which can absolutely
not be inverted,39 and the idea of relation is evident. For it speaks
of , !5
. The chosen translation relational succession,
intends to respect the ontological value, and not simply the logical one,
of the Nyssian afrmation.40
Gregory again uses Rm 8.9, which is an economic afrmation, in an
unequivocally immanent context. It is evident how the division between
Trinitarian being and action is absolutely inconceivable for him.
What is more, an explicit reference to the role of the Son in the
procession of the Spirit appears in this text. For the ) * $
3
!1
,
* /* C
$
H
can allow for a double
interpretation. On the philological level, one must note that the Vatican Codex 2066, from the 9th century,41 inserts an ) before the *
)

C
, :$ # ) * /*
* $
, A $
)$5% 5.

2 ; N,. I* B E A /A
A $
* \% C
, 4
c \ , $ 3 6$ 5% 5 , $! N F ) H
&

;-
2+ )H, 4 c
3 3 2!
,5 ,
3 #
,5 . i + /3 ) * $
3 $
+ . U

2. X7
,

1, ! "
;A 3 %
. f3 B O $*

) * $
3
!1
,
* /* C
$
H
, 2 , $*
R* ;
N,, L ; N
;*. ;* 3 B $*
3 ) * 5* h
R*
$* ) B /3 ) * 5* j ;1
* $
k ), k
!1
;B 12 K , !5

J , 4
5

+ 3 #

!%
2.
3 !
, G$ R* 3 $*
!1, J%

* $
R3 X
. f
.
-
,%
3 > * ?1
, . B
+ )1

; 3 3
. 2%, Nlm%

?
1% K ;@ $ 3 5H 6$! 8,
4
5H5

+ - 6$%,
?2. \

$5
. (DeOrDom, GNO VII/2, 42, 1443, 15).
39
In the 20th century, the inversion of the economic Trinitarian order in relation to
the immanent order has been much spoken of. See, for this theme, T.G. Weinandy
P. McPartlanS. Caldecott, Clarifying the Filioque: The Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue,
Com(US) 23 (1996) 354373. The criticism of K. Rahners position in Y. Congar, Je
crois . . ., pp. 3344 is particularly interesting.
40
For this reason the translation of G. Cardarelli, successione logica (logical
sequence), has been avoided. See G. Caldarelli, S. Gregorio di Nissa. La preghiera del
Signore, Milan 1983, p. 84.
41
W. Jaeger notes that Mai, Tischendorf, Caspari and others held that the manuscript is from the VIIIth century, but it is now known with certainty that it is from the
IXth or, even, from the rst years of the Xth century (cfr. W. Jaeger, Gregor von Nyssas
Lehre vom Heiligen Geist. (H. Drrie Ed.), Leiden 1966, p. 141).
160
chapter three
/*. PG follows this reading,42 but the reading followed by the GNO,
without the ), appears more philologically certain. Independently,
the whole of the passage speaks of the Spirits being of the Son as
a being from the Son, through the central position of this last in the
intra-Trinitarian order. It will be seen further on (p. 174) that the )
* /* is not totally extraneous to the Nyssian doctrine. In fact, the
interpretation of the argument of cause is precisely in the necessity to
afrm, at the same time, the Father as the unique
# in the Trinity
and to distinguish really, in the

constituted by the Son and
the Spirit, the two Persons. The role of the Son in the procession of
the third Person inevitably enters into play here.
The proposition of G. Caldarelli appears, on the other hand, risky
and with little foundation on the theological level, when, commenting
GNO VII/2, 42, 17, she reads43 ) * 5*
$
+ * $
3
)$
as if it was an afrmation of the Filioque, in as much as
* 5* is interpreted as a reference to the Son himself. In this case
the use of the verb )$
excludes any type of interpretation
in that sense. In fact, with the Greek Fathers, this term is xed and
reserved for the origin of the Spirit from the Father and is equivalent
to the Augustinian procedere principaliter.44
In Gregorys works, )$
appears ve times. Other than the
DeOrDom, it appears twice in the AdGraec (GNO III/1, 24, 18 e 25, 6): in
both cases the distinction between the procession of the Son, indicated
with Q
, and that of the Spirit, for which )$
is always
and exclusively used, is extremely clear. Engaged in the explanation
of the difference between the relation of nature-person for man and
for the Trinity, the Nyssian uses as evidence the fact that the number
of human persons changes, by death and generation, while the divine
Persons remain always three:
42
But the presence of ) is not philologically clear: in the manuscripts of Vatican
448 (XI cent.), gr. Monaco 370 (X cent.) and Paris Coislin 58 (X cent.) it can be seen
that the ) has been scratched out. It is absent from numerous manuscripts; thus
F. Mller has omitted it in the GNO. For a clear yet synthetic exposition of the philological problem, see M. Gomes de Castro, o.c., p. 114117. For an extended treatment:
W. Jaeger, o.c., pp. 122153.
43
G. Caldarelli, S. Gregorio di Nissa, La preghiera . . ., p. 82, note 22.
44
Bei den griechischen Vtern ist dieser Terminus xiert und reserviert fr den
Ausgang des Geistes aus dem Vater und wrde dem augustinischen procedere principaliter
gleichkommen (M. Gomes de Castro, o.c., p. 109110). For the precise use of the verb
)$
in Athanasiuss work, see M.A. Orphanos, The Procession . . ., p. 772.
161
No other Person is ever generated or proceeds (Q

` )$
)
from the Father or from one of the Persons, in such a way that the Trinity could ever be a group of four; nor does one of these Persons ever
nish, as if in the blink of an eye, so that the Trinity would ever become
a dyad, not even in thought.45
A little further on he claries, positively explicitating the correct doctrine

while terminologically distinguishing the double procession:
For one and the same is the Person ($%$), that of the Father, from
whom is generated (Q
) the Son and proceeds ()$
) the
Holy Spirit.46
In the RCE 47 )$

also appears, where the procession of the Spirit
from the Father (n $
+ * $
3 )$
) is spoken of, and in the
InCant,48 where it is used in a context that is not immediately Trinitarian.
One can then be in agreement with Gomes de Castro, when he
afrms, in reference to Gregorys work, that one use of )$

in reference to the Son can be found no place in him.49
Further, the exact use of the verb for the procession of the Spirit
exclusively is common to the Cappadocians. In discourse 39, 12 Gregory
Nazianzen distinguishes clearly )$, which refers exclusively to
the procession of the Spirit from the Father, unique Cause (W
) or
principium of the Son and the Holy Spirit, from $o1
, which the
Spirit has in common with the Son.50
The distinction is particularly important; in fact, from antiquity the
origin of the incomprehension between East and West on the procession of the Third Person was noted: the translation with the same
Latin verb, procedere, for both ).!5 of Jn 8.42, which refers to the
Son, and for )$
of Jn 15.26, referred to the intra-Trinitarian procession of the Spirit from the Father alone.51 Garrigues even
45
k + Q
` )$
) * $
3 ` ) ?3 - $&$% $%$
>, G

C
$
D k !p $ q - -
% $&$% c 4 m$P X25
!*, G

15
c P
)5\D (AdGraec, GNO III, 1 24, 1822).
46
q + $%$
3
;, * $
, ) L$ /3 Q

3 $*
3 O )$

. (Ibidem, GNO III/1, 25, 46).
47
Cfr. RCE, GNO II, 392, 6.

49
Eine Verwendung von )$
mit Bezug auf den Sohn ndet sich bei ihm
nirgends (M. Gomes de Castro, o.c., p. 110). See, more generally, V. Rodzianko, Filioque in Patristic Thought, StPatr 2 (1957) 301.
50
Cfr. Gregory Nazianzen, Oratio 39, 12; SC 358, p. 174.
51
The Vulgate translates thus. See J. Garrigues, Procession . . ., p. 353.
48
162
chapter three
afrms that the fundamental weakness of Latin pneumatology consists

in this terminological incapacity to distinguish )$
from generation.52 Thus already Maximus the Confessor53 managed to escape
the perplexities raised in the East over the Filioque with the distinction,
found in Cyril of Alexandria, between the )$
of the Spirit
from the Father alone and his $o1
and 6$, from the Father
and Son together.54
The precision is essential to alleviate the doubts that the Western interpretation55 of + /* raise even now among the Orientals, reinforced
above all by the conviction that the Filioque is a negation of the Monarchy,
in as much as it seems to introduce a second causal principle in the Trinity.56
It is instead necessary to recognize that the Greek and Latin Traditions have each deepened one of the irreducible yet inseparable aspects
of the abyss of the Father: on the one hand, the incommunicable aspect
of the Monarchy conceived as a hypostatic character of the Father,
unique origin (,\) of the Son and the Holy Spirit; on the other side
the communicable aspect of the Monarchy, in as much as the Father
is source ($ \) of the consubstantial communication and principle of
the Trinitarian order.57
Once established the insubstitutible role of the Monarchy, one must
see what the role is, for Gregory, of the Son in the procession of the
52
Ibidem, p. 356.
Cfr. Maximus the Confessor, Opuscula theologica et polemica, PG 91, 136AC.
54
Cfr. Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus, PG 75, 585A and In Ioannem, PG 74, 444B.
55
In light of these explanations one can compare the text of the AdAbl with the
following: relinquitur ergo quod in divinis sit una persona quae non procedit ab alia,
scilicet persona Patris, a qua procedunt aliae personae; una immediate tantum, scilicet
Filius; alia mediate simul et immediate, scilicet Spiritus Sanctus, qui ex Patre Filioque
procedit. Ergo est personarum ternarius in divinis. (Thomas Aquinas, De Potentia, q.
9, a. 9, s.c. 5). Aquinas also interprets the Greek per Filium in the sense of Maximus
the Confessor: unde etiam ipsi graeci processionem Spiritus Sancti aliquem ordinem
habere ad Filium intelligunt. Concedunt enim Spiritum Sanctum esse Spiritum Filii, et
esse a Patre per Filium. Et quidam eorum dicuntur concedere quod sit a Filio, vel prouat ab eo, non tamen quod procedat. Quod videtur vel ex ignorantia, vel ex protervia
esse. Quia si quis recte consideret, inveniet processionis verbum inter omnia quae ad
originem qualemcumque pertinent, communissimum esse. Utimur enim eo ad designandum qualemcumque originem; sicut quod linea procedit a puncto, radius a sole,
rivus a fonte; et similiter in quibuscumque aliis. Unde ex quocumque alio ad originem
pertinente, potest concludi quod Spiritus Sanctus procedit a Filio. (Thomas Aquinas,
Summa Theologica, I q. 36, a. 2, c.). See also Catechismus Catholicae Ecclesiae, n. 248.
56
Cfr. E.D. Moutsoulas, La pneumatologie du Contra Eunomium I, in L. MateoSecoJ.L. Bastero (eds), El Contra Eunomium I en la produccin literaria de Gregorio de
Nisa, Pamplona 1988, p. 388.
57
Cfr. J. Garrigues, Procession . . ., p. 360.
53
163
Spirit. It is necessary to discern if his role is purely passive, as if he were

a canala simple transmitteror if the Second Person has a role in
common with the Father, who always is and always remains the unique
Cause in the Trinity. Further it is necessary to distinguish the economic
level from the immanent one, since the intervention of the Son in the
temporal sending of the Spirit is a Scriptural given. On the other hand
his immanent role is not an immediate information. For this reason it
is necessary to analyze the texts in which Gregory explains, through
images, the personal distinction. His principle expressive instrument is
the theology of light.58
IV. The Theology of Light
a. The Light
The presence in Greek patristics in general of the afrmation of a role
of the Son in the procession of the Holy Spirit is also an undeniable
fact. The heart of the question is to discern if this is only in manifestationthat is in the economic action of the Spiritor if the Greek
Tradition also attests to a role of the Son in the intra-Trinitarian procession of the Spirit from the Father. If this were the case, there would
be no reason to invoke the Monarchy against the equivalence between
the per Filium (+ /*) and the Filioque, defended by J. Garrigues59
and the Doctrinal Clarication on the question of the Filioque, dated
September 8, 1995 from the Pontical Council for the Promotion of
the Unity of Christians.60
The evidently economic texts will be excluded from the analysis, and
due to the vastness of the question, we will not attempt an exhaustive
interrogation. The objective is simply to show the importance of the
AdAbl for the question, at the same time showing the originality, depth
and equilibrium of Nyssian theology.
58
About the concept of light in Gregorys thought, see A.M. Ritter, article Luz, in
L.F. Mateo-SecoG. Maspero, Diccionario de San Gregorio de Nisa, Burgos 2006, pp.
565570.
59
Beyond the already cited work, see also J. Garrigues, Thologie et Monarchie. Lentre
dans le mystre du sein du Pre ( Jn 1,18) comme ligne directrice de la thologie apophatique dans la
tradition orientale, Ist. 15 (1970) 435465.
60
For a commentary by Garrigues on the clarication itself, see J. Garrigues, la
suite de la Clarication romaine sur le Filioque , NRT 119 (1997) 321334.
164
chapter three
A. de Halleux sought to analyze attentively, from this perspective,

the pneumatology of Gregory of Nyssa,61 dened by him as one of
the principle orthodox representatives of the per Filium formula.62
His thesis is that + /* is born in a polemical context of the Pneumatomachist controverises. It could be traced back to the exegesis by
Origen of the Prologue of St. John. The line of development would
pass through the 2- ) 2%Light from Lightof Nicea and the
Alexandrian Tradition, which interpreted the intra-divine generation
of the second Person in terms of the eternal luminous radiance, based
in the $

of Wis 7.26 and Heb 1.3.
Both Basil and Gregory Nazianzen are cautious in the use of the
image.63 With Gregory of Nyssa, instead, the theology of light returns
to play a central role and is an instrument in explaining not only the
procession of the Son from the Father, but also that of the Holy Spirit.
It is here that the + /* enters into play.
In front of the perplexity which the )1 of Jn 1.3 causes him, Origen afrms the Monarchy of the Father and introduces the intra-divine
mediation of the second Person.64 The danger is subordinationism,
which will become the inevitable consequence after Nicea and the
distinction between and : this last is thenceforth necessarily read as a synonym for created.
Gregory, surprisingly, despite the fact that he must confront the subordinationist Neo-Arianism of Eunomius, does not hesitate to use the
+ /*, in such a manner that de Halleux can afrm: It is surprising,
effectively, that the bishop of Nyssa appears, among the orthodox theologians of his time, as the lone advocate of the pneumatological formula
per Filium, discredited by the use that the adversaries of the divinity of
the Holy Spirit made of it.65
61
Cfr. A. de Halleux, Manifest par le Fils. Aux origines dune formule pneumatologique,
RTL 20 (1989) 331.
62
Lun des principaux reprsentants orthodoxes de la formule par le Fils (ibidem,
pp. 4s).
63
2-,
2-,
2- !! q 2-, r 5. (Gregory Nazianzen, Oratio 31, 3,
1415; SC 250, p. 284).
64
sH 1 H 6$ $5 ,, 3 $
1

3 /3

3 O $*
,
1 B > * $
3 C
$, 4
;@1
! 5B $15
3 $% + * ! 1% 3 O
$*
$% C
&,
$- $% - 6$3 * $
3 +
R* 1%. (Origen, Commentarii in Evangelium Joannis II, c. 10, 75, 17; SC
120, pp. 254256).

65
Il est frappant, en effet, que levque de Nysse apparaisse, parmi les thologiens
165
This afrmation highlights Gregorys equilibrium, which is not taken

up by polemics.66 It is necessary to remember that Basil, so sparing in
his doctrine on the Holy Spirit,67 in order to afrm the unity of essence
of the three Persons, already says unique is also the Spirit, individually
announced, united (
$) to the unique Father, by means of
the unique Son.68
A. de Halleux himself admits that the true problem is distinguishing
the economic passages from the properly immanent ones.69 In fact,
Gregory loves to argue with economy and immanence together: this very
fact should be an indication against the separation of the two spheres.
However it is now necessary to move on to the examination of the
principle Nyssian images and constructions in which he turns to light
to illustrate the intra-Trinitarian dynamic.
b. The Sun
In the rst book of the CE, Gregory offers an incontrovertible exegesis of
the use of the analogy of light to express the Trinitarian immanence. His
explanation starts in the economy:70 if one professes the fundamental
truth that the Son has a divine nature, without any confusion, then
one can discover the harmony of truth, understanding that our Lord
is the creator of all things, King of the universe, who governs not by
an arbitrary power, but by his superior nature. Thus it can be seen
that the First Principle is not divided into distinct rst principles by
orthodoxes de son temps, comme le seul avocat de la formule pneumatologique par le

Fils, discrdite par lusage quen faisaient les adversaires de la divinit du Saint-Esprit
(A. de Halleux, Manifest . . ., p. 17).
66
G. Podskalsky afrms that Der Fortschritt gegenber Basileios besteht darin, dass
Gregorios mit seinem Werk gegen Eunomios eindeutig die doppelte Absicht verfolgt,
nicht nur den Angreifer zu widerlegen, sondern auch positiv zur Dogmenentwicklung
beizutragen (G. Podskalsky, Theologie und Philosophie in Byzanz, Mnchen 1977, p. 95).
67
Cfr. A. Meredith, The Pneumatology of the Cappadocian Fathers and the Creed of Constantinople, IThQ 48 (1981) 205.
68
t B
3 O u*
,

;3
- )
!!, ?3 v/*
A ? u

$ (Basil of Caesarea, De Spiritu Sancto, c. 18, s. 45, 2425;
SC 17, p. 194).
69
Cfr. A. de Halleux, Manifest . . ., pp. 1819. In both Ep 24 (GNO VIII/2, 76,
712 and 79, 16) and Ep 5 (GNO VIII/2, 94, 2324) the vocabulary suggests an economic context; the same is found in the Trinitarian part of the OrCat.
70
The whole Trinitarian reection, for Gregory, moves from the consideration of
the Sacrament of Baptism. Cfr. L.F. Mateo-Seco, La Procesin del Espritu Santo en la
Refutatio Confessionis Eunomii, in Atti del Congresso Teologico Internazionale di Pneumatologia I,
Rome 1983, p. 181.
166
chapter three
any substantial difference but that unique is the Divinity, the Principle
and the Power.71 It is important to note that in this economic moment
Gregory has recourse to the category of principle (,\) and not that
of cause (

). At this point the Nyssian moves on to the properly
immanent dimension:
However as in a movement of parting and return, passing to the summit of divine knowledge, I mean to say the God of the universe himself, running with the mind throughout that which is connected (-
$,-) and in afnity (- %), we return in succession from the
Father through the Son to the Spirit () * $
3 + * /* $3
3 $*
). For, rmly anchored in the consideration of the unbegotten
light, we know then still, according to the continuity in relation, the light
[that shines] from that, like a ray that coexists with the sun and whose
cause (

) of being is from the sun, while its existence (J$
) is
contemporaneous with the sun, since it does not shine successively in
time, but together with the apparition of the sun it is manifested from it.
Thussince there is absolutely no necessity that, remaining slave to the
image, by the weakness of the example, we concede to the calumniators
a pretext to contradict the reasoningwe will not think of a ray [that
shines] from a sun, but of another sun [that shines] from an unbegotten sun, that together with the conception of the rst shines together
(!$
) with him in a generated mode ( -) and that is
equal to him in all things: in beauty, power, splendour, greatness and
luminosity and in whatever is observed in the Sun. And still [we will
think] in the same way of another of such lights, that is not separated
from the light generated without any temporal interval, but that shines
by means of it (
;*), while it has the cause of the hypostasis (.
6$%

) from the original light () * $%$ 2%):
a light certainly this one as well that, in likeness to that which we rst
considered, shines and illuminates and accomplishes all that is proper to
light. And in fact there is no difference between one light and another
in as much as light, from the moment that it does not appear deprived
of anything or lacking of the illuminating grace, but is contemplated at
the summit of every perfection with the Father and with the Son,72 it
is enumerated in succession along with the Father and the Son73 and in
itself ( ?
*) gives access to the light that is conceived in the Father
and the Son to all those that can participate in it (
,H).74
71
Cfr. CE I, GNO I, 179, 19180, 10.

This is with the genitive.
73
Here Gregory uses with the accusative, which corresponds to the idea of
dynamic succession.
72
74
G$ 1

!
$ + 3 2!
. 5%
,
;3
!1% 3 )$ $% 5, + - $,-
% P
d 1, ) *
$
3 + * /* $3 3 $*

,%*. ) $ d + * \ 2%3
167
It is interesting here to underline that the participation in the light of the

Trinitarian intimacy is given in the Holy Spirit, that is through and by
the Spirit (?
*). The preposition refers to linear movement. It is
an extension of the Trinitarian breathing to the economy, the extension
of the immanent movement that springs from the Father ()), passes
through the Son (+), and terminates in the Holy Spirit ($3).75
Nevertheless de Halleux afrms: The cause of the hypostasis of the
Holy Spirit thus does not concern his personal subsistence, but it is rather
envisioned here as natural cause of being, since the preoccupation
of Gregory is focused on the coeternity in existence, that is to say,
denitively, on the consubstantiality of the three lights.76 The observation is far from clear, since it seems to articially oppose the cause
of the hypostasis to the cause of being, breaking the perfect Nyssian
equilibrium between Person and Nature. It does not seem possible to
negate that Gregory refers to Trinitarian immanence here, in as much
as the passage explicitly recalls the eternal relations. Rather, if one
seeks to read the text without prejudices, the beauty and strength of the
continuity between economy and theology is prominent. One cannot

)H5 $! 3 )
;* 2-
+ 3 $,B )\
r H

A K! = 2
1 , w K B

* C
) * K! , K B J$
*
A K! =, ; , J $1 , !! * A X25.
3 x! )
;*

2
1 D Q!! B (; + $Q
P !
*
H
2

+ * ! !
@ ) P * 6$
d) ;, H
)
K! \, !! ) \ K! F!! x! * P * $& )$ d
-
;A !$

+ $
4
% N,
!!
!
$ 15 2

$Q O$
H $ 3 x! 5%1.

$! > * 2-
+ 3
;3 $, ; ,A
\
*
* 2%3 $, !!+
;* B )!$, B . 6$%

N, ) * $%$ 2%, 2- 1

;3
5
*
$$ 51 !$
2% 7
+ F!!
$
+ * 2%3 )
7.
;B + N 2% $3 > 2-

;3 * $

!!
\, :

;B .
2%. , )1 ` 6 2

, !!+ $^ ! $3 3

)$ 1 + $
3
/* 5%H
, + $
1

/3 5H
,

?
* $
% $3 3 )$ 2- 3 ) $

/A $Q H

,H
1 ,
7
. (CE I, GNO I, 180, 10181, 11).
75
E. Bailleux comments, in reference to the personalism of the Greek Fathers, that
La fonction conomique des hypostases divines ne fait que prolonger au-dehors
les rapports quelles ont dans la vie trinitaire, sans quil soit besoin de faire appel la
thorie psychologique . (E. Bailleux, Le personalisme trinitaire des Pres grecs, MSR 27
(1970) 2425).
76
La cause de lhypostase du Saint-Esprit ne concerne donc pas sa subsistence
personelle, mais elle est plutt envisage ici comme la cause de ltre naturel, puisque
la proccupation de Grgoire porte sur la coternit dans lexistence, cest--dire, en
dnitive, sur la consubstantialit des trois lumires (A. de Halleux, Manifest . . .,
p. 22).
168
chapter three
speak of the three Persons without speaking at the same time of their
consubstantiality and coeternity. Of particular interest is the use of
the participle !$
, which cannot but recall the classic unus
Spirator sed duo Spirantes.77
The Eastern reading of this text would like to limit it to an afrmation of the unity of the divine essence, since the theological context in
which the reading is done is always that of an antinomious vision of
the substance and the hypostases.78 But, given that Eastern theological
thought generally moves from the distinction of the three Persons, it is
signicative, when their consubstantiality is afrmed, that the personal
distinction itself is protected in one way rather than another.
In fact de Halleux is obliged to refer to the activity of the Spirit,
hypothetically afrming that: This activity of the Spirit is said to be
just as eternal as that of the Son light, but the bishop of Nyssa could
have placed it in the eternity of theology simply in as much as potential
source of the economic revelation.79
Instead of excluding the mediating function of the Son, this passage
appears to witness to it with a unique and rare equilibrium in the history
of theology, something that should be a valid pattern for ecumenical
dialog, in as much as he afrms healthily the monarchy of the Father,
while giving a role that is not exclusively passive to the Son in the
procession of the third Person. One can consider as well the fact that
Gregory had to negate the theory of Eunomius, who considered the Son
a simple instrument of the Father in the production of the Spirit.80
To this can be joined the consideration that Gregory, in order to
explain the procession of the Spirit and to distinguish it from the
theory of two sons,81 does not have recourse to an image with a certain
patristic tradition, that has its roots in the thought of Methodius of
77
Sed videtur melius dicendum quod, quia spirans adiectivum est, spirator vero substantivum, possumus dicere quod Pater et Filius sunt duo spirantes, propter pluralitatem
suppositorum; non autem duo spiratores, propter unam spirationem. Nam adiectiva
nomina habent numerum secundum supposita, substantiva vero a seipsis, secundum
formam signicatam. (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 36, a. 4, r. 7)
78
Cfr. E.D. Moutsoulas, La pneumatologie . . ., p. 389.
79
Cette activit de lEsprit est dite tout aussi ternelle que celle du Fils lumire, mais
levque de Nysse pourrait ne lavoir reporte dans lternit de la thologie qu titre de
source potentielle de la rvlation conomique (A. de Halleux, Manifest . . ., p. 22).
80
Cfr. Basil of Caesarea, Eunomii impii apologia, PG 30, 856BC (SC 305, pp. 274276).
81
Certain heretics maintained that the Spirit was also a Son, as the second Person,
since both were from the Father.
169
Olympus:82 differently from Adam, who is a son of God, Eve cannot

be called daughter of Adam, while having been generated through
him by God. Thus there would be a parallel between Adam and the
Son on one side, and between Eve and the Spirit on the other.83 The
procession of the Spirit would be placed in proximity to the formation
of the rst woman from the rib of the rst man.
This explanation has the advantage of distinguishing the two processions, assigning to + * /* a total passivity, which strongly
protects the Monarchy. There is a distinct yet linked image, as Orbe
maintains, that compares Adam to the Father, in as much as unbegotten, Seth to the Son, in as much as generated, and Eve to the Spirit, in
as much as proceeding; this image is used by Gregory Nazianzen,84 as
by Pseudo-Gregory of Nyssa, in the treatise Ad imaginem Dei et ad similitudinem.85 Certainly the parallel Adam-Son and Eve-Spirit was known
to the Cappadocians and to their school and, in a particular way, to
Gregory of Nyssa due to his familiarity with the work of Methodius
82
Cfr. Methodius of Olympus, Simposio III, c. 8, 69ss; SC 95, p. 107. See the rigorous
and well documented article: A. Orbe, La procesin del Espritu Santo y el origen de Eva, Gr.
45 (1964) 103118. Together with: M.T.-L. Penido, Prlude grec la thorie Psychologique
de la Trinit, RThom 45 (1939) 665674.
83
This parallel between the Holy Spirit and the woman is rich with interesting consequences: a classic theme of the Fathers is in fact, that the Demon tempted man by
envy. One could perhaps say that he did not choose Adam, but Eve due to the envy of
her beauty, of her capacity to attract to the good and the true. Thus beauty knew perversion (the considerations of R. Guardini on the ambiguity of beauty after original sin
are quite interesting. see: R. Guardini, Religise Gestalten in Dostojewskijs Werk, Paderborn
1989, pp. 280281) and the serpent made it his own, usurping fascination to deceive.
For this reason Michelangelo portrayed the demon with a womans clothes in the Sistine
Chapel. But Christ, on the Cross, repaired this perversion and now it is his regard that
attracts (cfr. P. Rodrguez, Omnia traham ad meipsum, Romana 13 (1991/2) 331342).
84
Cfr. Gregory Nazianzen, Oratio 31: De Spiritu Sancto, 11; SC 250, p. 294, along
with Carmina Dogmatica III, PG 37, 408 and John Damascene, Expositio dei I, 8, 119122
(PTS 343.7.2, p. 23): G$
g+ 1 y ($!
) 5*)
5
(/3 ) * g)
K 0k
) . * g+ $!Q )$5H
(; + )\5
J ) ; 2
21 !!\!% (F5%$ ), !!+ A
. 6$% $=.
85
Cfr. PG 44, 1329CD. The treatise is collected in PG 44, 13281345, among Gregorys works. It is now clear that the work is not of Gregory of Nyssa, even if contemporaneous to him. Cfr. O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der Altkirchlichen Literatur III, Freiburg im
Breisgau 1913, pp. 195196 and E.D. Moutsoulas, . . ., pp. 340342. Others
attribute it to Anastasius of Mount Sinai (Cfr. PG 89, 1151). Orphanos cites this passage, attributing it to the Nyssian, to afrm that Gregory maintained the origin of the
Spirit a Patre solo, forgetting that the analogy would rather indicate a procession a Patre
Spirituque, since Adam did not generate Seth alone. But this afrmation would have been
an absurdity to the ears of the Nyssian (cfr. M.A. Orphanos, The Procession . . ., p. 94).
170
chapter three
himself. Nevertheless the Nyssian does not use this image. One could
perhaps hypothesize that he avoids it, since it attributes, both to the
Holy Spirit and to the Son, too passive a role which could quite easily
be interpreted in a subordinationist manner.
Thus this rst Nyssian text appears to suggest that the Nyssian +
* /* cannot be reduced to a function of pure transmission, as a
mere canal. The key to the problem should probably be researched in
an attentive evaluation of the term !$
.
c. The Flame
Parallel to this text of the CE I is the following text of the AdMac, in
which Gregory has recourse to the image of a ame.
In fact, for those beings whose activity according to the good does not
admit diminution or any difference, how could one rationally think that
the numerical order is a sign of some sort of diminution, of the difference of nature? As if, seeing the ame divided in three torchesand
supposing that the rst ame is cause of the third light, since it propagates
re to the extreme light by communication through that which is in the
middleone concluded, for this reason, that the heat in the rst ame
is greater, while in the next it is less, and tends to diminish, and that the
third cannot even be called re any more, even if it burns and illuminates
in a similar manner and accomplishes all that is proper to re.86
Once again he is afrming the unicity of nature of the three divine

Persons, but the choice of image cannot be by chance, above all if it is
confronted with the preceding passage and if one considers the value
of the already considered !$
. The afrmation that action
follows being is always present: if the Spirit accomplishes divine actions,
that is he burns, then he is God. Energy is inseparable from nature.
In the AdSimp, the same argument is applied to the Father and Son.
Gregory negates that the generation of the Son can be assimilated
to a generation of the esh. In a difference from that which happens
86
)2 z + K
+ 3
53 )1
;
)!% ` $

!!
N,,
$- ) k!
+ 3 53 )!
&& , .
+ 2
$

!!
., #5
H C
b G$ c # ) !
$ ^ 1
@!1$% 2!

B * 2%3 6$5&5
C
$& 2!
)

% + * 1 3 F )8

N$

7 $!7 ) P
$&^ 2! 5

, P B )2. 6$@@ 1

$3 3 N!
N,
$

!!
\, B B $* N !15
, c $

$! %
^
2
^

$
+ * $3
7
D (AdMac GNO III/1, 92, 3493, 10).
171
when bodies are generated,87 God does not pass from non existence to
existence. For this reason Heb 1.3 speaks of the radiance of his glory
($

), to indicate that, as the light shines from the nature
of that which illuminates without mediation and as soon as the light is
lighted the splendour (3 $

) appears, so the Son shines from
the Father and one can never separate the Father from the Son, since
it is impossible that his glory be deprived of light. Illumination cannot
exist without glory and splendour. And the Son is this splendour.88
None of these images can be understood if one abstracts them from
the connection between nature and action, the only path by which
man can, according to Gregory, speak of the Trinitarian immanence.
But, if the economy is an obligatory passage, it would be improper to
maintain that the Nyssian checks himself at this rst moment, without
elevating to the more properly theological level.
V. The Role of the Son
a. Per Filium
To evaluate the implications and theological signicance of these
images, another text of the CE is useful, as it suggests the same
conclusions:
87
Gregory insists particularly on the simultaneous creation of the body and soul in a
unique human being, thus being a proponent of immediate animation. See M. Canvet,
Lhumanit de lembryon selon Grgoire de Nysse, NRT 114 (1992) 678695 and Ph. Caspar,
Comment les Pres de lEglise envisagent le statut de lembryon humain, Connaissance des Pres
de lEglise 52 (1993) 1618.
88
{
B !1% : |, ; )\5 ,
)\5 , ; |,
,5\%

: ; , + .
. \% &

)2
7 P 5 d 2. &
B + E
Q
, B 53 + E
C
$H, ;
;3 ) * E

. 3
u
*! $

;3 X7, "

,5- :, G$
3 ) * !, 2-
) . 2& ) * $
7
) )
(* + )2 !,
3 2- 3 )
;* 1!
8), J% !

)
*5
H $!, :
) * $
3 /3
;1$ ,% * /*
$
\D ; ),%H + !
$. C

, 4 ; ),%H F $

C
3 !,. .! B :, G$ 3 C
$

) *

C
( + k . ; c # 3 )
$

7), J%
3 !1 C
$ $

$ ) * B
C
, : ;
| 3 $

D +
F $

C
\,
. G$ ] ;
N )$ * $

!1 : |, ; )1,
)1, ; |, J%

) $ * /*
*
!1, / ) 3 $

. (AdSimp,
GNO III/1, 63, 2264, 16).
172
chapter three
We have, then, demonstrated with what was said that the Only Begotten
Son and the Spirit of God are not to be sought in creation, but it must
be believed that they are above creation. And creation, perhaps, can be
understood based in some one of its principles, by means of the research
of those who apply themselves to study such questions, but that which
is above creation would not be for this better known, since in it there
is no demonstrative indicator prior to time. If, then, we consider in the
uncreated nature and the admirable realities and names, that is the Father
and the Son and the Holy Spirit, how will that which thought, which
worries and labours to interrogate, superimposing by comparison one
thing to another in a temporal interval, learns about the temporal world,
be possibly thought, this same thing, of the eternal essence without generation? In which [eternal essence] the Father is considered without any
principle whatever and unbegotten, Father from always, and [generated]
from him ()
;*), but in continuity and without any interval, the Only
Begotten Son is thought at the same time. By whom [the Son], and with
whom (
;* B

;*) one perceives immediately (;5T)
and in conjunction, before any empty and unsubsisting ($
)
idea furtively strikes the mind, also the Holy Spirit, who is not posterior
to the Son in existence (J$
), in such a way as to think that the Son
might have existed some time without the Holy Spirit. But, having also
he the cause of being from the God of the universe, from whom (:5)
also the Only Begotten light has being, he shines by means of the true
light and is not separated from the Father or from the Only Begotten,
neither in an interval of time, nor in a difference of nature. In fact, there
are not temporal intervals in the eternal nature, nor any difference of
substance. For this reason it is not possible to think of any difference as
between uncreated being and created being: and the Spirit is uncreated,
as we have demonstrated in that which precedes.89
89
'$ ] 1
+ - 1% ) P 3 . /3

3 * 5* $*
H Q5
, !! F% . % $ C
, K B
)$
7 ,. + . $!$
- +
*
7 H
2!% #%

! 25\
, 3 B 6$B
;B c + % Q!!
- N!5, ;3 )
;A * $3 -
&% 61.
] ) P = 2 H
+ 5

+ $

X

, $

/3
3 $*
3 O, $- N

, :$ )$ - % $
71

$!$
*

!
@ K N
, > ?1 - 6$5H
,*

\
, *
)$ .
$
% 7
;
C
b ) } $
B F
,
1
$
H
, )
;*
B
+ 3 $,B
% /3 A $
$H
,
;*
B

;*, $
$
+ 1 $
$H
,
;5T
3 $*
3 O 1%

!
@
, ;, 6 7
+
J$
+ 3 /, G $B 3 . ,
* $
5.
, !! )
B * 5* - :!%

;3

N, * C
, :5
3 1 )
2-, + B * ! 5* 2%3 )!8
, k
\
k 2% ? *
$
3 ` * * $.
B + )$ . $
% 2%
; N, K B
+ ;

2+ ;
. ;B + N
3
173
As de Halleux rightly remarks, the gnoseological terminology of

the text should not lead to think of an economic ambience. We are,
instead, in a clearly theological moment, exactly as in the AdAbl. The
central afrmation is the atemporality of the processions: in the created
sphere there is always a chain of temporal causes that is known;90 for
the Trinity, it is instead necessary to use a causal category puried of
temporality. The Cause is the Father, but the Son has a specic role,
the by him and with him (
;* B

;*)91 is clear. Still, the
vocabulary does not refer to the economy, but exclusively signies the
intra-divine processions, as de Halleux recognizes.92 The great advantage of the terminology of light is precisely the capacity to unite mission and procession. Certainly, the price of showing this continuity is
the possibility of confusion between economy and theology. But the
contexts of the analyzed passages are sufciently clear and exclude,
even explicitly, as in this last case and in the AdAbl, every possibility of
reference to the economic sphere.
For this reason it is not easy to understand the afrmation of de Halleux, when he states that the intention of this passage regards above
all the eternity and divine nature of the Spirit. The author thus does
not think for the moment to distinguish procession from generation.
In other words, the expressions of
+ 3 $,B and + 1
do not yet oppose in an immediate manner the begetting of the Son,
and the Sons mediation in the procession of the Spirit.93 Perhaps an
$3 F
2+ ).
, F B 3 $*
3 O,
5V ) H
$!
@* $1
!. (CE I, GNO I, 137, 20138, 20).
90
As noted earlier, Gregory is always attentive and open to the experimental sciences.
The identical expression, also inserted in a highly theological context (the three
uncreated Persons are placed in opposition to the created world) is found in Ep 38 (PG
32, 329C). It is an often cited text in anti-Filioquist circles (for example: Gregory of
Cyprus, Scripta apologetica, PG 142, 259AB; De processione Spiritus Sancti, PG 142, 296B) and
which was object of different interpretations in the Council of Florence. In light of this
text of CE I and the clarication of the difference between processio and )$, the
interpretive problems appear to resolve themselves: '$ 3 ~ u*
,
91
2 L $Q
)$ K -
5- ,
$ 7, * v/* B
<

%

!
@
, . B * u
3

) 1 N, 3 C
,
:5
)$
, * %3 .
+ 6$
H
N,, 3 + 3 v/3
T
;A % 75

3 ) * u
3 62
. i B
v/3 3 ) * u
3 )$ u*
?
*
5 ?
* % 7%,
- ) * \ 2%3 )!8
, ;

+ 3 7 -
%% %
N, $3 3 u
1
` $3 3 u*
3 ~, !!+ H
1 % 7
. (Ep 38, PG 32, 329C)
92
93
Cfr. A. de Halleux, Manifest . . ., p. 24.

Lintention de ce passage porte avant tout sur lternit et la nature divine de
174
chapter three
underestimation of the context of the passages impedes fully bringing

to light Gregorys admirable equilibrium, which never distinguishes
without uniting and which, for this reason, speaks of two processions
in distinct terms, always afrming at the same time the Monarchy.
It should be enough to consider that Gregory conceives Father and
Son as co-relative names, since Father does not indicate the substance,
but the relation to the Son himself (K * $
3 !. ; ;

) $

\, !!+ $3 3 /3 ,1 $
).94
Thus the Filioque is as if alluded to, in the purest immanence, by the
very names of the divine Persons, since one cannot think of the Father
without thinking of the Son.
In synthesis, it seems truly arduous to negate the presence of an
immanent per Filium in Nyssian doctrine.95 Specifying the explicit content
of this per Filium requires however, that further analyses be carried out.
b. Ex Filio?
Once familiarized with the vocabulary of the theology of light, and
given as well the considerations of the discussed passage of the DeOrDom,96 it is necessary to verify whether it might be possible to nd some
indication in the Nyssian work to further interpret the role of the Son
in the procession of the third Person as an ex Filio.
The expression ) * /* appears literally three times in Gregorys
works: in one case it is the afrmation of the impossibility to invert the
relationship between the Father and the Son97 and does not immediately
regard the present discussion, but in two cases, both in the AdMac, the
expression refers to the relation between the Son and the Spirit.
lEsprit. Lauteur ne songe donc pas pour linstant distinguer la procession de la

gnration. En dautres termes, les expressions
+ 3 $,B et + 1
nopposent pas encore le caractre immdiat de lengendrement du Fils une mdiation
de ce dernier dans la procession de lEsprit. (Ibidem).
94
Cfr. RCE, GNO II, 319, 17. See also CE II, GNO I, 208, 1114.
95
This is also B. Studers opinion, commenting precisely the analyzed passage of
the AdAbl (cfr. B. Studer, La foi en lEsprit Saint dans lglise Ancienne, in Mysterium Caritatis.
Studien zur Exegese und zur Trinittslehre in der Alten Kirche, Rome 1999, p. 450). Gregorys
afrmation is to be read in the context of the Council of Constantinople, and shows the
great progress of Nyssian pneumatology in respect to the work of both Basil and the
Nazianzen (cfr. Idem, Dio Salvatore nei Padri della Chiesa, Rome 1986, p. 216).
96
See p. 160.
97
175
Gregory is afrming the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father

and the Son and the necessity to adore him, since he is by nature divine:
He is absolutely immortal, without any variations or mutations, always
good (
!3) and free of the necessity of external (?1%5) gratuity. And
in every creature he realizes ()H) everything as he wills and is holy
and he is a guide, and right, and just, truthful, and searches the depths
of God (+ @5 )- * 5*), proceeds from the Father () $
3
)$) and is received from the Son () * /* !
@
).98
In describing the attributes of the divine Persons, Gregory passes from

the immanent dimension to the economic one. The adverb ?1%5 suggests that the rst properties refer to the intra-Trinitarian dimension, but
the later verb )H moves attention to the dimension of ad extra activity. Nevertheless Gregory ends a list of economic properties with the
disconcerting + @5 )- * 5*. To know the depths of God
is an expression of the immanent intimacy, above all since it is followed
by the ) $
3 )$, which refers to the intra-Trinitarian
procession of the third Person from the Father. At this point, the ) *
/* !
@
troubles, since it is not evident from the immediate
context whether it necessarily refers to the economic dimension.
Further on, in AdMac, GNO 108, 18109, 3, Gregory proposes
the same structure, but in a more extended manner: from immanence
(1824) to economy (2428) to return to the depths of God and
conclude, referring to the Spirit:
He always searches the depths of God, always receives from the Son ()
* /* !
@) and is sent without separating, is gloried and has
glory. For he who gives glory to another is manifestly considered to be in
a superabundant glory. For how is it possible that he who gives glory be
deprived of glory? If not light, how will one manifest the grace of light?
Thus he who is not himself glory, honour, greatness and magnicence
will not show the power to give glory. Therefore the Spirit glories the
Father and the Son.99
98
: 5
) $%, : F$

!! %

!3

$B . ?1%5 ,, : $
) $Q )H
5V @!
,
O, K, ;51,
, ! 5, + @5 )- * 5*, ) $
3
)$, ) * /* !
@
(AdMac, GNO III/1, 97, 813).
99
+ @5 * 5* )p, ) * /* !
@
$1!!

; ,% 7

7

N,D n + F!!=
%, .! :
) 6$@
!!^ ^

!
@
. $- + 7 3 Fb )+ \
2- , $- * 2%3 )$
,b J% ;B

)$
, n c
;3

!%

!$1$
. 7
] 3 $
1

3 /3 3 $*
. (AdMac, GNO III/1, 108, 28109, 3).
176
chapter three
Immediately after the repetition of the + @5 * 5*, the ) *
/* !
@
of the previous passage is further explicitated:
the Spirit receives from the Son and is sent. Clearly one cannot use
these texts to maintain a Filioque that would be little more than verbal
reductionism; however the clear afrmation of the texts is that the
Spirit receives glory from the Son and is, at the same time, he himself
glory; for this reason he can communicate glory and be efcacious
in the economy. These texts lead inevitably to reafrm the continuity
between immanence and economy, together with a role of the Son in
giving glory to the Spirit, a role that appears difcult to reduce only to
the temporal dimension. This is more evident if one continues to read
in the same treatise, where, a little further on, Gregory afrms:
Do you see the circulation of glory through the same cyclical movements
( )! . + - % $2)? The Son is gloried
by the Spirit; the Father is gloried by (6$3) the Son. And reciprocally, the
Son has glory from ($
+) the Father and the Only Begotten becomes
the glory of the Spirit. For in what will the Father be gloried, if not in
the true glory of the Only Begotten? And in his turn, in what will the
Son be gloried, if not in the greatness of the Spirit? Thus also reason
( !), inserting itself in this circular movement (
!),
gives glory to the Son through (+) the Spirit and to the Father through
(+) the Son.100
Here light is made glory and there is a marvelous intersection of the

two movements: a circular movement that represents the dynamic of
intra-Trinitarian immanence, which consists in a mutual and eternal
communication of glory from one person to the other, from one Person
through another. In this circular movement there intersects, by the work
of the Holy Spirit, a linear movement, expressed by , that attracts
the economic dimension to the Trinitarian immanence. The Trinity, as it
overcomes the antinomy between unity and multiplicity, also overcomes
the geometric antinomy between the circle and the line: to understand
it we must have recourse to a circular image, to signify the immanent
communion of love, eternal exchange of total self gift, and at the
same time a linear image, that extends opening up to the economy.
100
p )! . + - % $2b 7
/3 6$3
* $
D 7
6$3 * /* $
\D $!
N, $
+ * $
3
/3

* $

D + )
5\
$
\,
P ! 5P * * ^b ) B $! /3
5\
, )
P
!%^ * $
b J% $!

! ! 3 /3 B
7 + * $
, + B * /* 3 $
1
. (Ibidem, GNO III/1, 109, 715).
177
VI. Unity
a. :!% C

The role of the Son in the procession of the Holy Spirit necessarily
leads to the theme of unity. In this perspective, in the literature that
treats the procession of the Spirit in Gregorys theology or in general
patristics, the following passages are often not taken into account in
toto or partially.101
In the CE Gregory discusses the personal distinction in the Trinity.
It is a passage which is extremely clear as a whole:
And the Holy Spirit, who in the uncreated nature is in communion
(%
) with the Father and the Son, is nevertheless distinguished in
his turn by his proper characteristics. To not be that which is contemplated properly in the Father and the Son is his most proper characteristic
and sign: his distinctive property in relation to the preceding does not
consist in being in an unengendered mode (\%), nor in an only
engendered mode (-), but to be in the mode of constituting a
whole102 (C
B :!%). He is conjoined to the Father by the fact of
being uncreated, but is distinguished in his turn by the fact of not being
Father as he is. United to the Son by the uncreated nature and by the
fact of receiving the cause of existence from the God of the universe,
he is distinct from him in his turn by the peculiarity of not subsisting
hypostatically (6$.
) as the Only Begotten of the Father and by
the fact of being manifested by the Son himself (
;* * /*
$2 1
). But further, since creation subsists (6$ ) by means
of the Only Begotten (+ * *), so that one does not think
that the Spirit has something in common with it due to the fact that he
is manifested ($2 1
) by the Son (+ * /*), he is distinguished
from creation since he is invariable, immutable and without need of any
external good (?1%5).103
101
Even without analyzing these passages, M.A. Orphanos, after having considered
the text of the AdAbl and some of the passages thus far presented, in reference to the
possibility that Gregory maintained the Filioque, writes: If we are going to consider
these evidences in themselves, it is possible to draw such a conclusion (M.A. Orphanos,
The Procession . . ., p. 93). Nevertheless he negates the possibility invoking the whole of
Nyssian theology. It seems that the true reason for this negation is the aprioristic afrmation of the separation of economy and immanence.
102
Cfr. A. Bailly, Dictionnaire Grec-Franais, Paris 1950, p. 1370.
103
3 B $*
3 O ) A = . 2% %
N, $3 /3

$
1
H $! %
$
;-

. &
+
;*
H )

3 B ) % C
, O$ % A $

A /A ! )5& . 3 + \ \% C
\ -, C
B
:!%, )

;*
$3 + $ 1
$
. A + $

178
chapter three
The verb $2 1

, as de Halleux underlines, should not lead to
think of an economic dimension, due to the immediate clarication
of the Nyssian in stating that the Spirit has nothing in common with
creation. On the contrary, the adverb ?1%5 explicitly reminds one
of Trinitarian immanence. Gregory is preoccupied to distinguish clearly
the two parallel : the immanent one, that refers to the intra-divine
procession (
;* * /* $2 1
) and the economic one (+
* *), referring to ad extra activity.
Here is the power of the Nyssian distinction between created and
uncreated. It is propitious to note that Meredith attributes Basils pneumatological insufciency104 to precisely the lack of clear dichotomous
vision of reality:105 if there can be a third category besides created and
uncreated, one leaves the possibility open of conceiving the Spirit in a
subordinationist manner. It seems that, for Basil, the problem is rooted
in a certain Origenistic inheritance, by which the action of the Spirit in
creation is limited exclusively to rational creatures:106 his creative role
is thus reduced to sanctication.
The creative role of the Spirit is quite different in Gregorys thought,
where the divinity of the Spirit is manifested precisely in his creative
activity, in continuity with the reasoning developed in the AdAbl. This
concreative role of the Spirit, together with the Father and the Son,
constitutes a step Basil had been unwilling and indeed, within his
Origenist framework, unable to take.107
Gregory shared with Athanasius his clarity in the distinction between
created and uncreated. This observation renders even more relevant the

+ 3 F
$ $! $
;* A $
C

5$ )H

,% 7
. . B $3 3 /3
+ 3 F
2
[
) A

. 6$% ) * 5* - :!% N,] 2

$! A 7, ) A \
- ) * $
3 6$.

) A
;* * /* $2 1
. $! B
. % + * * 6$ , 4 c
$3
N,
5P 3 $*
) * + * /* $2 1
, ) A 1$=

!!&=

$H . ?1%5
5

3 $*
$3 . %. (CE I,
GNO I, 108, 7109, 5).

104
See Basils letter 71, where he does not afrm the consubstantiality of the Spirit,
despite the pressures of letter 58 from Gregory Nazianzen, to which Basil is responding.
For a systematic presentation of Basilian pneumatology, see J.M. Yanguas Sanz, Pneumatologa de San Basilio, Pamplona 1983.
105
Cfr. A. Meredith, The Pneumatology of . . ., 205206.
106
Cfr. ibidem, p. 201. See also J. Dillon, Origens Doctrine of the Trinity and Some Later
Neoplatonic Theories, in D.J. OMeara, Neoplatonism and Christian Thought, New York 1982,
pp. 1923.
107
A. Meredith, The Pneumatology of . . ., 206.
179
parallelism between the immanent and the economic one in the
passage in question here. For Athanasius reserves this last preposition
to the economic dimension alone, and in particular to creation, while
he uses ) and $
for the immanent processions.108 Gregory does
not follow this distinction and, as already seen, is not rigid and formal
in the use of prepositions in the Trinitarian formulas: he is free, thus,
to develop a parallelism, as formal as conceptual, between Trinitarian
economy and immanence.109
The explicitly immanent exegesis of $2 1
that Gregory offers
for the passage in question, serves as hermeneutical key to a deeper
understanding of the properly theological value of the images that he
adopts for the theology of light. To manifest and To shine with are
not economic, but rather express the role of the Son in the procession
of the Holy Spirit. The paternal Monarchy remains intact, and the Son,
in communion with the Father, has a role that is not purely passive.
The key to understanding these afrmations needs to be sought in
the personal characteristic of the Holy Spirit, who is in a mode so as
to constitute a whole (:!%). It is necessary to remember here the $-
C
of the AdAbl: the Person is expressed in adverbial mode, since the
Person is constituted by the mode of being of the unique essence. It
is the Spirit who closes the Trinity, it is he who, in his being of Love,
actively unites the Father and the Son.
Nevertheless, one cannot be totally in agreement with the formulation proposed by von Balthasar of this Trinitarian aspect: Gregory
conceives the supreme unity not under the sign of the Father, but under
that of the Spirit. And thisthe idea would perhaps surprise a Greek
Fatherexplicitly in as much as he is the mutual love of the Father and
the Son. 110 In fact, the Nyssian construction, in its perfection, does not
afrm the unity given by the Spirit through a diminution of that given
by the Father. The Monarchy remains intact. The Father is source of
108
Cfr. J.R. Meyer, Clarifying the Filioque Formula Using Athanasiuss Doctrine of the Spirit
of Christ, Com(US) 27 (2000) 396397.
109
Athanasius as well does not separate Trinitarian economy and immanence. See
the bivalent meaning of )!$, referred to the Holy Spirit: ) u
3 !1

)$5
, )$ $
+ * * ) u
3 !1 )!$,

$1!!
,

. (Athanasius, Epistulae quattuor ad Serapionem, PG 26, 580A).
110
Grgoire conoit lunit suprme non pas dans le signe du Pre, mais dans celui
de lEsprit. Et cecilide surprendra peut-tre chez un Pre grecexpressment en
tant quil est lamour mutuel du Pre et du Fils (H. von Balthasar, Prsence et pense,
Paris 1947, p. 137).
180
chapter three
unity, the Spirit is the one who brings to completion this unity. In this
context L. Turcescus remark on the relationality of the Third Person
as essential element of the Person is specially useful.111
This is all the more true since Athanasius had cited Pope Dionysius
(261272) in that which constitutes the rst testimony of the unitive
role of the Spirit. This moment marks the entry, at least into Latin
theology, of the circular representation of the Trinity alongside the
linear image introduced by Tertullian:
It is necessary that the divine Word be united to the God of the
universe; and it is necessary that the Holy Spirit love to have his dwelling
in God and to reside in him. It is absolutely necessary that the Holy
Trinity be recapitulated and guided back to unity, as to a summit, that
is to the all powerful God of the universe.112
b. Glory
The Son and the Spirit do not exist except in relationship to the Father,
if one considers them in their incommunicable hypostatic names, since
the Father is the source of their personal originality. But in the measure
in which the hypostasis is manifested in the mode of existence, which
has for content the essence itself, the divine Persons are manifested in
an order in which each of the divine Persons is for the other condition
of the common consubstantiality.113 Thus, if one looks at the Trinity
from the rst optic, the Father is the unique Cause and the Monarchy is
111
Cfr. L. Turcescu, Gregory of Nyssa . . ., pp. 112113. Nevertheless this scholar stresses the difference between Gregorys understanding of the Sons role in the procession
of the Spirit and the western Filioque (cfr. ibidem, p. 68): even if this position should be
obviously true with respect to scholastic understandings of the Filioque, it seems too
sharp. L. Turcescu points out with great acuteness the theological importance conferred
by Nyssian to the use of correlative terms for the names of the Divine Persons: the
Father is Father for the eternal generation of the Son, so that there is no time when
the Father was not Father. This correlativeness means that the Son should take part in
the procession of the Spirit at least through the Fatherhood of the First Person, as the
Third Person proceeds from the Father, who is Father just for the eternal generation of
the Son. In this way, also the active character of the being Image of the Father, which
constitutes the Second Person, suggests a less sharp conclusion in comparison with L.
Turcescus position.
112
K-5
+ A 5A - :!% 3 5H !, )2!,%H B A 5A

)
Q5
H 3 O $*
.
5

>
, G$
2\
, 3 53 - :!% 3 $

!1%, 2
!
*5

5
$Q
. (Pope Dionysius cited in Athanasius, De decretis nicaenae syn-
odi, 26, 3; H.G. Opitz, Athanasius Werke, II/1.1, Berlin 1940, p. 22).
113
Cfr. J. Garrigues, Procession . . ., p. 359.
181
afrmed, but, if one moves to the second optic, the unity is the work of
the Holy Spirit, who, last in the order, closes that circle of divine Love.
He closes and he opens: for it is him who, at the same time, attracts
and unites the economic dimension to the immanent one.
One can thus consider the following text of the InCant, as one of the
summits of the whole of Nyssian Trinitarian doctrine:114
It is better to textually cite the divine words of the Gospel: So that all
be one. As You Father, are in Me and I in You, that they be also one in
Us ( Jn 17.21). And the bond of this unity is glory (3 B 3 .
?
K
) ). But no prudent person could oppose the
fact that the Spirit is called glory, if the words of the Lord are considered.
For he says: The glory that You gave Me I gave to them ( Jn 17.22).
He gave, in fact, that glory to the disciples, saying to them Receive the
Holy Spirit ( Jn 20.22). He, having embraced human nature, received this
glory that he already possessed forever, from before the world was made
(cfr. Jn 17.5). And, since this human nature was gloried by the Spirit,
the communication of the glory of the Spirit happens to all who belong
to the same nature ()$ $Q 3 B), starting with the disciples. For
this he says: And the glory that You gave Me, I gave to them, so that
they be one like Us. I in them and You in Me, so that they be perfect in
unity ( Jn 17.2223).115
The value of the passage is inestimable; it permits a profound understanding of the pneumatological role of the AdAbl and can serve as an
interpretive key for the whole treatise. For the unfolding of the AdAbl
shows that Gregory uses coordination against the subordination of
Eunomius. When he moves to personal distinction, he is extremely
attentive to distinguish the principle of the cause from that of nature.
Thus one sees that he is far from Origenistic Neoplatonism, and the
argument of whoever might wish to make of the + /* in this
114
The extraordinary value of this passage has been recently shown in: L.F. MateoSeco, La unidad y la gloria, in J. Chapa (Ed.), Signum et testimonium. Estudios ofrecidos al Profesor Antonio Garca-Moreno en su 70 cumpleaos, Pamplona 2003, pp. 179198.
115
@1! c #
;+ )$ !1% $

515
+ 5
* ;
! 2%D

$ q
5V , $, ) ) V ) , "

; ) KH q
. 3 B 3 . ?
K
) D
B !15
3 $*
3 O ; F - )$1% $ $3

;+ @!1$% + *
2%D f
, 2 , N% , N%

;H. N% + 4 ! 5-
H
5
H

$V $3
;D @ $*
O. N!
@ B

$ C, $3 * 3 C
5%$ 2
$@
!, w
5 + * $
)$ $Q 3 B K . *
$

$3 -
5 -
1 . + * 2 D f
,
N% , N%

;H, "
>,
5V KH > )D )V )
;H
T )
) , "
!%1 3 >. (InCant, GNO VI, 467, 217).
182
chapter three
treatise simply a translation of the Origenistic theology of light turns

against the user:116 the whole of the treatisethe !5
of the
workshows that even when Gregory uses the terminology of radiance he speaks of the Trinitarian immanence, and not only of the
economic movement.117
Gregory explicitly treats the immanent dimension and the economic
dimension, distinguishing them without separating them. He afrms
that he who unites the Trinity is the Spirit; at the same time he afrms
that it is also the Spirit who unites Christians: the unity of the Church
is founded in the unity of the Trinity. The Spirit unites in the immanence and unites in the economy and, further, it is exactly the Spirit
who unites the economy and immanence with each other, attracting
to the Son, and in the Son, to the Father.
It is also quite interesting to approach the afrmation that the Spirit
is the bond118 (3 3) of the Trinity to the passage of the CE,
already analyzed in the preceding section, where Gregory asserts that
the personal characteristic of the Spirit is dened by :!% C
: His
being Person is constituted in carrying to unity. The Scriptural basis of
the afrmation is, certainly, the indication of the Spirit as the Spirit of
the Father (Rm 8.11) and as the Spirit of the Son (Gal 4.6).
Thus his economic activity, always in communion with the other
two Persons, is sealed by his personal characteristic: he is glory. In this
manner one is reconnected immediately with the splendour of the
theology of light.
This is also the true profound signicance of human coordination
as well: man is called in time, in history, to act with the Trinity, to let
himself be drawn by the Spirit to the divine unity.
As for the question of the Filioque, these last two passages are essential to understand the depth and equilibrium of Nyssian thought.
The summit of Latin thought is the nexus amoris,119 which eliminates
116
See A. de Halleux, Manifest . . ., p. 30.

Further, the very Johannine prologue, from which the reection of Origen is
inspired, moves from Trinitarian immanence ( Jn 1.1) to the economy, to then return to
the immanence itself ( Jn 1.18), in a marvelous circular structure which seems to have
marked Nyssian thought.
118
The term is analysed and presented in its philological context in G. Maspero, El
Espritu, la Cruz y la unidad: 1%, y en Gregorio de Nisa, ScrTh 38
(2006) 445471.
119
Qui Spiritus Sanctus secundum scripturas sanctas nec Patris est solius nec Filii
solius sed amborum, et ideo communem qua inuicem se diligunt Pater et Filius nobis
insinuat caritatem (Augustine of Hippo, De Trinitate 15, 17, 27; CCSL 50/1, p. 501). Ad
117
183
any possible erroneous interpretation of the sense of double spirative

principle, protecting the Monarchy and, at the same time, including
the Filioque, in such a way to assign to the second Person a role that is
not purely passive; thus also Gregory goes along the same path, understanding the Spirit as , who unites the Father and the Son.
Conclusion
In synthesis, analysis parted from the AdAbl to show how the + *
/* and the afrmation of the Trinitarian order have an important
relevance for the history of Trinitarian dogma.
After a preliminary historical introduction to the question, the study
developed in two stages: starting from the incontrovertible Scriptural
reference to the economic sending of the Holy Spirit by the Son, it
was shown, reading the AdAbl in the light of other Nyssian passages,
that Gregory afrms a role for the Son in the procession of the Holy
Spirit on the level of Trinitarian immanence as well. Exactly for this
reason, Y. Congar ends his commentary on the text of the AdAbl afrming decisively: One cannot deny a role of the Son in the intra-divine
existence of the Spirit.120 Also important is the afrmation of J.D.
Zizioulas who, in reference to the Council of Constantinople and the
problem of the Filioque, quotes the passage of the AdAbl in question
and concludes, referring himself to the ) * $
3 of the Symbol,
that it . . . does not exclude a mediating role of the Son in the procession of the Spirit.121
In second place the qualitative situation of this role was interrogated:
tertium dicendum quod Spiritus Sanctus dicitur esse nexus Patris et Filii, inquantum est
Amor: quia, cum Pater amet unica dilectione se et Filium, et e converso, importatur in
Spiritu Sancto, prout est Amor, habitudo Patris ad Filium, et e converso, ut amantis ad
amatum. Sed ex hoc ipso quod Pater et Filius se mutuo amant, oportet quod mutuus
Amor, qui est Spiritus Sanctus, ab utroque procedat. Secundum igitur originem, Spiritus Sanctus non est medius, sed tertia in Trinitate persona. Secundum vero praedictam
habitudinem, est medius nexus duorum, ab utroque procedens. (Thomas Aquinas,
Summa Theologica, I, q. 37, a. 1, ad 3)
120
On ne peut nier un rle du Fils dans lexistence intra-divine de lEsprit (Y. Congar, Je crois . . ., p. 61). K. Holl also maintains that, without a doubt, this is an intraTrinitarian afrmation (cfr. K. Holl, Amphilochius von Ikonium in seinem Verhltnis zu den
grossen Kappadoziern dargestellt, Darmstadt 1969, pp. 213214).
121
J.D. Zizioulas, The Teaching in the 2nd Ecumenical Council on the Holy Spirit in Historical
and Ecumenical Perspective, in Atti del Congresso Teologico Internazionale di Pneumatologia I, Rome
1983, p. 44.
184
chapter three
is this a purely passive + * /*, a simple transmission, or does

the Son enter actively into the procession? The conclusion is that one
cannot understand the signicance of the + * /* if one does
not pay attention to the personal characteristic of the Spirit: the one
who unites the Father and Son and who leads to unity. For, with a
beautiful expression of B. Forte, the Spirit is the us in person of the
divine communion.122 Thus one can afrm that, in the context of
Nyssian thought, the Spirit as is the exegesis of the + *
/*, from which it can never be separated. This should be the most
original contribution of the present study: this connection is almost
totally passed over in the literature, which is principally dedicated to
the study of the divinity of the third Person and, in the few cases in
which his procession is treated, one gets often sidetracked in polemics
of verbal Byzantinism.
Thus it was seen, that the base of the whole Nyssian construction
is the continuity between economy and immanence: the sending of
the Holy Spirit by the Son cannot be solely limited to the economic
sphere.123
It is probable that this development of Gregorys Trinitarian doctrine
is due to the great value that he places in creation and to the purication
of the remnants of Origenistic intellectualism that still slowed down
Basils pneumatology. For the Spirit is, at the same time, the One who
brings to completion the dynamic of intra-Trinitarian union and who
attracts and unites man and the world to the Triune God, inserting
them in his vortex of life and love.
The summit of Gregorys pneumatology is then, precisely the recognition of the personal characteristic of the Third Person: he who
leads to union, in immanence as in the economy. He is the ,
the bond. His mode of being God, his mode of containing the unique
divine essence, is the :!% C
: that is, to carry to unity, to constitute
a whole.124 This -, of , recalls immediately the - in the
122
noi in persona della comunione divina (B. Forte, Teologia della storia, Cinisello Balsamo 1991, p. 153).
123
B. Bolotov, already, citing a long series of patristic texts, wrote: Lhypothse que le
+ * /* contiendrait partout et toujours lide dun envoi seulement temporel du Saint
Esprit dans le monde, pour amener les cratures au bonheur, conduit faire violence aux
textes dans linterprtation de certains passages patristiques (thesis n. 3, B. Bolotov,
Thses . . ., p. 282).
124
One can confront the Nyssian texts with the following from Thomas Aquinas:
hoc enim ipsum quod Spiritus Sanctus Patri aequalis est, a Filio habet. Similiter,
excluso Spiritu Sancto, qui est duorum nexus, non posset intelligi unitas connexionis
185
!$
of the Son with the Father: in this way it is shown that
the fundamental category is intra-Trinitarian %
.125 B. Forte cites
2 Cor 13.13 and auspiciously notes that, precisely due to his personal
characteristic, in the greeting used by the primitive Church %
was attributed to the Holy Spirit.126

In this sense, the accent moves to the Trinity as union of love. In the
communion of the Father and the Son, which point one to the other, on
the real level as on the logical level, the Spirit is not a complement, a
simple extension towards the economy, fruit of an almost subordinating
conjoined spiration. The Spirit rather unites the Father and the Son in
as much as Spirit of the Father and of the Son.
So, in the Nyssian + * /* the accent is placed on the *
/*, on the communion of the Father and the Son, and not on the
pure passivity of the +.127 The same phenomena will be reproduced
in Latin theology, where the nexus amoris eliminates the danger of dialectically and logistically opposing the Son to the Father, in generation
as in spiration. The nexus amoris shows, in fact, that in the Filioque the
accent is on the Filio and not on the que.128 With the same operation
the dangers of theological lioqueism129 are eliminated, which, with
an almost rationalistic coldness, dissects the Trinity, separating Paternity
and Filiation from Spiration and Procession.
Such a deformation would lead to negate the Trinitarian reciprocity
of the Spirit in relation to the Father and the Son. In fact, from a purely
logical viewpoint, only the Father and Son are in relative opposition.130
The temptation is then born to move from the logical level to the real
one, afrming that, while the Spirit is relative to the Father and the
Son, united in the unique spiration, one cannot say however that the
Father and Son are, in their turn, relative to the Spirit.
In synthesis, in Latin terms, lunus Spirator is unus precisely by the
inter Patrem et Filium. Et ideo dicuntur omnia esse connexa propter Spiritum Sanctum:
quia, posito Spiritu Sancto, invenitur unde Pater et Filius possint dici connexi. (Thomas
Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 39, a. 8, c.)
125
As in the Latin unus Spirator.
126
Cfr. B. Forte, El Espritu Santo y Jess de Nazaret, ScrTh 30 (1998) 814. The Christian salvation to which it is referred is: s , * * R*
K $
* 5*
K %
* U $
+ $% 6-. (2 Cor 13.13).
127
Further, the mentality of a Greek Father cannot but see a blasphemy and impiety
in the predication of any passivity in God.
128
Cfr. V. Rodzianko, Filioque . . ., p. 306.
129
Cfr. J.M. Garrigues, La reciprocidad trinitaria del Espritu Santo, con respecto al Padre y al
Hijo, ScrTh 30 (1998) 818819.
130
Cfr. p. 173.
186
chapter three
Person of the Spirit, who is the union, the , of the duo spirantes, united and distinct in their proper Paternity and Filiation by their
mutual Spirit. Spiratio is, in fact, the unique respiration of love of the
Father and Son: to be Son does not only mean to receive all from the
Fatherto be his perfect Image but also to give to the Father perfect
glory, to give everything back to the Father. It is in this manner that
the Son manifests the Spirit in his Filiation to the Father, who is in
this way fully Father, receiving his own glory from his own Son. This
is the circular dynamic of glory seen in the AdMac (see p. 176). But, at
the same time, since it is the proper of the Son to give to the Father
all glory, it is the Son who sends the Spirit in the economy, extending
into time the eternal movement that characterizes him as Person, to
attract all to the Father.131 The Spirit is then like the eternal regard
of the Son to the Father, which for love of the Father himself reposes
on creation and is extended as the gaze of the Crucied Christ, that
fascinates and conquers.132 Gregorys equilibrium is, thus, perfect.133
Therefore, while confronting Nyssian pneumatology with Latin doctrine, two considerations are necessary: on one side Gregory puries
the category of cause of the temporal dimension and of substantial
inferiority, transforming it into a notion that signies fundamentally origin. Thus the Nyssian

is notably closer to the Latin principium.134
On the other hand, it is also necessary to consider that Occidental
pneumatology does not intend, with the Filioque, to introduce a second
131
Cfr. the second part of note n. 83, with reference to the work of P. Rodrguez.
Perhaps, one could hazard an exegesis of Jn 1.1: ' ,P | !,
!
| $3 3 5,
53 | !. It is well known that John uses the term 5
without the article to signify the Divinity in its unity, while 5 is the Father (cfr. R.E.
Brown, The Gospel according to John, 1: IXII (The Anchor Bible 29.1), Garden City 1986,
p. 5 and F. BlassA. Debrunner, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, Gttingen
1984, 254, 1). Thus, at the beginning of his Gospel the two divine persons appear face
to face. Perhaps the preposition $ can foreshadow the Spirit, the gaze of love that
unites the Son and the Father.
133
Garrigues himself shows that the Trinitarian theology of Thomas Aquinas, when
considered in its totality, also reaches an admirable equilibrium that gathers the principle contributions of both Latin and Greek patristics. (Cfr. J.M. Garrigues, La reciprocidad . . ., pp. 810812).
134
B. Pottier approaches the Nyssian + * /* to the a Patre per Filium of Tertullian (Adversus Praxean, IV, 1; CCSL 2, p. 1162), since the Latin Filioque would imply an ex,
as the formula of the Credo witnesses to (cfr. B. Pottier, Dieu et le Christ selon Grgoire de
Nysse, Turnhout 1994, pp. 362363). The discussion of pp. 159162 on the absence in
the Latin sphere of an equivalent to the Oriental )$
, should be sufcient to at
least raise some doubt on Pottiers afrmation, which, on another note, does not cite the
pneumatology of the .
132
187
cause in the Trinity.135 The key point is the consideration of the Spirit
as bond of union in the Blessed Trinity.
V. Rodzianko suggests that the direct study of Augustines texts is the
only path to return to a full union;136 therefore this succinct presentation
of the pneumatology of Gregory of Nyssa wishes to show, in Gregory
himself, a natural bridge in the heart of Greek patristics, to return to
that unity whose true author is the Holy Spirit.
All of Nyssian pneumatology, as the treatise of the AdAbl itself,
culminates in the afrmation that this unity, to which man and the
whole of the economic dimension are called, is the unity of love, of
the very intra-Trinitarian love itself. Often the critics of the Filioque
dialectically oppose Christological, and thus historical, mediation to
the pneumatological one.137 However, in Gregory of Nyssa the +
* /* is precisely the manner to express the mediation of the Spirit
that enters into history to lead back, in Christ, the sensible world and
history itself to the Father.
This is magnicently expressed in the treatise InIllud, which offers
a natural line of conclusion, not only for this chapter, but of the
entire commentary: Gregory explicitly brings together, in this text, the
, the nexus, to the love of the Father and Son, which opens
into love for his Body, so that all be one, in unitate Spiritus Sancti.138
The InIllud139 also moves from a Trinitarian preoccupation, since it
seeks to explain in a non subordinationist fashion 1 Cor 15.28: when
all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him
who put all things under him, so that God be All in all.140
135
This is a typical interpretive imprecision. See, for example, K. Holl, Amphilochius
von Ikonium . . ., pp. 214215, for whom the observations of the preceding note apply.
136
Cfr. V. Rodzianko, Filioque . . ., p. 307.
137
This is perhaps the central point of the whole question, as the hard commentary
on the Clarication on the Filioque by J.C. Larchet manifests (cfr. J.C. Larchet, La question du Filioque, Theol(A) 70 (1999) 761812). In fact, other illustrious Orthodox authors
have fully accepted the Clarication: B. Bobrinskoy ( Documentation catholique 2130,
21I-1996, pp. 8990) and O. Clment ( Contacts 48, 1996, pp. 24). The nexus of the
question is the connection between economy and immanence and the essential role that
this would confer to history and historical realities, the Papacy included (see V. Solovv,
La Russia e la Chiesa universale, Milan 1989, p. 74).
138
On the origin of this profound expression from the conclusion for the prayers of
the Roman Missal, see B. Botte, In unitate Spiritus Sancti, MD 23 (1950) 4963.
139
For a brief presentation of the InIllud see A. Penati Bernardini, Gregorio di Nissa,
Commento al Nuovo Testamento, traduzione e commento, Rome 1992, pp. 20ss.
140
Due to the improper use that the Arians made of it, this verse has been the object
of attention of various authors: for a synthetic perspective J.T. Lienhard, The exegesis of
1 Co 15, 2428 from Marcellus of Ancyra to Theodoret of Cyrus, VigChr 37 (1983) 340359;
188
chapter three
The evident problem is the submission (6$

\) of the Son. For this
reason Gregory starts the treatise analyzing the different signications
of the term 6$
\: there is the submission of slaves to their masters,
of irrational animals to man, or that of the nations to Israel. But the
6$
\ of Christ to the Father cannot be understood in this way.
Jesus lived in true submission to Mary and Joseph, as it is explicitly
said in Lk 2.51, however this is not opposed to his divinity, since he
became perfect man, similar to us in all things but sin. Thus, as any
normal child, he was submitted to his parents. With age, this submission naturally ended, as can be seen in the wedding of Cana.141 But it
is not in this sense either that the 6$
\ of the Son in 1 Cor 15.28
is to be understood. Here the submission to God is nothing other than
the complete separation from evil,142 that is to say the union with God.
It is thus the submission of the body of Christ, that is of all men who
become one in Christ with the Father. As already noted,143 the Nyssian
refers to the beautiful text of Jn 17.2123:
The Lord is life,144 and by means of him, according to the word of the
Apostle, the whole Body is given access to the Father, when he consigns
the kingdom to our God and Father.145 And his Body, as has been often
said, is the entire human nature to which he has indissolubly united
(
,5 ) himself. For this reason the Lord is called by Paul Mediator
( ) between God and men.146 In fact, he who is in the Father and has
become man among men realizes mediation in uniting all in himself
and by means of himself to the Father, as is said in the Gospel of the
Lord, saying to the Father: So that all may be one. As you, Father, are in me
and I in you, that they be also one in us. That clearly shows that in uniting
us to himself, he who is in the Father, by means of himself realizes our
union (2
) with the Father. But also that which follows in the
Gospel is in harmony with the explanation: The glory that you gave me,
I have given to them. I maintain in fact that he here calls the Holy Spirit
also C. McCambley, When (the Father) Will Subject All Things to (the Son), Then (the Son)
Himself Will Be subjected to him (the Father) Who Subjects All Things to him (The Son).- A Treatise
on First Corinthians, 15, 18 by Saint Gregory of Nyssa, GOTR 28 (1983) 115.
141
Cfr. InIllud, GNO III/2, 7, 158, 18.
142
143
Part of this long text was already cited on p. 69 and on p. 74. Nevertheless, it can
be interesting to propose a synthetic view, at the end of the commentary of the AdAbl.
For its study in Patristic thought, see: C. Scouteris, The People of GodIts Unity and Its
Glory: A Discussion of John 17. 1724 in the Light of Patristic Thought, GOTR 30 (1985)
399420.
144
Cfr. Jn 14.6.
145
Cfr. 1 Cor 15.28.
146
1 Tim 2.5.
189
glory, whom he gave to the disciples through the act of breathing (+
* $2\
),147 since it is not possible that those who were found
divided from each other be united, unless guided back to the unity of
nature (21) by the unity (P ? ) of the Spirit. For, if
someone has not the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to him.148 But the Spirit
is glory, as he says in another passage to the Father: Glorify me near you,
with the glory that I had near you before the world was.149 For the divine Word,
who before the world was has the glory of the Father, in the last days
became esh;150 and it was necessary that also the esh became, due to the
union (+ .
%) to the Word, that which the Word is. And
it becomes it in receiving that which the Word had before the world was.
And this was the Holy Spirit. Therefore he also says: The glory that you gave
me, I have given to them, so that by means of it (
;.) they be united
(?%5-) to me and by means of me ( )*) to You. And we see
also the words proposed in the continuation of the Gospel: So that they be
as us one. I in them and you in me, so that they be perfect in unity. I believe that
these words need no explanation to harmonize them with the proposed
signication, since the expression itself clearly presents this teaching. So
that they be one, as we are one. For it is not possible that all become one as
we are one, unless in the case that, liberated (,%51) from all that
divided them one from another, they unite to us who are one, So that they
be one, as we are one. But how does this happen? Since I am in them. For it
is not possible that only I be in them, but it is absolutely necessary that
also you be in them, since You and I are one. And thus those who have
come to be perfect in us will be perfect in unity. For we are one. But [the
Lord] explains that gift (,) more openly with the words that follow,
saying you have loved them as you have loved me. For if the Father loves the
Son and we are all in the Son, as many of us who have become his body
by faith in him (+ .
;3 $ %), consequently (!5%)
he who loves his own Son loves also the body of the Son, as the Son
himself. And we are the body.151
147
148
149
150
Cfr. Jn 20.22.
Rm 8.9.
Jn 17.5.
Jn 1.14.
151
7% B , ]
,
+ 3 $!3 !, $
A &

;* K $
% $3 3 $
1
, {
$

A @
!
K- A 5A

$
. -
B
;*,
5V #
$!!, $Q
K 5%$ 2 }
,5 .

;3 B * 3

5*
5&$% 5 $
+ * u
!
. + ) A $
j
) 5&$ ) = $! H

) A ?
A $
?-

?
* A $
,
5& 2 ) A ;
! =
, $3 3 $
1
3 ! $D
$ q
5V , $, )
) V ) , "
J% H ) KH q .
2- + * $
:
?
A KQ ?&
) A $
j ?
* $3 3 $
1
2
K-
$7
. g!!+
+ )2. * ;
! H 1D f

1% 1%

;HD
+ )
*5
!1
;3 C
3 $*
3
O n N% H
5
H + * $2\
. ; + N F!!% ?%5.

190
chapter three
J. Danilous observation is an interesting one in saying that Gregory

was interested in 1 Cor 15.28 above all at the end of his life,152 after
having reached the full maturity of his thought.
The movement of thought in the InIllud is the same as the AdAbl: one
starts from the universal nature to arrive at the Trinitarian intimacy, to
which man is called in Christ.
The connection between Trinitarian economy and immanence is
evident here: the Spirit, dened in the InCant as bondof
the Father and Son, is Glory.153 And it is properly the Spirit who reunites
the dispersed human nature in Christ, since in Christ every man can
be one with the Father.
The InIllud vision is clearly more eschatological; for this reason he
can nish in afrming that the love of the Father for men is not distinct
from that of the Father for the Son.154 As we are images of the Image,
T $ !!\!%

P ? * $
21D 0
$*
R* ; N,, L ; N
;*. 3 B $*
K
) ,
5&
2 ?1%5 $3 3 $
1
D
P ^ } C, $ ,. $
+ $3 *
3 C
. + 53 $3 * N,% * $
3
, )$
)$ ),% - K- + )1, N [B]

+ . $3 3

% )H 15
:$ ) D
B ) * )H !
@H n $3
* C, D * B | 3 $*
3 OD ;B + F!! $
&
$! $
3
/*
U $
. + *
)
*5 2 : f

1% 1%

;H, "

;. ) ?%5-
)* . e% B

+ )2. ) A ;
! = $
D
q
5V KH > )D T )
) V )
;HD : )V
T > )D "
!%1 3 >.
*
+
;Q )$ \% C
,M7 $3 3
5.
A $1= \
,
;. 2
- . !1% 3 $ %
)51 .
q
5V KH
> )D ; )
3 F!!% T $
q 15
I
5V KH ) >,
$% - $ !!\!%
;T
7% ,%51 ?%5H KH "1
) >,
q
5V KH ) >. * B $-
b : 'V )
;H.
; )
3 )B 15
)
;H, !!+ $%
1, )$ 'V

T > ).
J% \
f!%1 3 q / ) KH !%51D KH
+ 3 >. f B
, 2
&

A )2. != J% $V
: $

;T
5V )B _$
. + $

$p 3 /, ) B A /A
$ 5
/ + .
;3 $ % -

;* , !5% 3
/3 ?
*
$-
$p
* /* 3 -
4
;3 3 /D KH B 3 -
.
(InIllud, GNO III/2, 21, 723, 14)

152
Cfr. J. Danilou, Ltre et le temps chez Grgoire de Nysse, Leiden 1970, p. 202.
153
Note that the circulation of glory represents the same dynamic of the intimate life
of the three persons (cfr. p. 176).
154
A problem in Latin theology has been the recognition that divine liation is liation to the Father, and not only to God. This is due to a linguistic difculty generated by
the absence of the article in the Latin language. In fact, every Latin translation of the
Gospel of John is doomed to eliminate the difference between 5, that is the Father,
and 5, that is God, the divine nature. (See note 132 on p. 186).
191
so we are sons in the Son. The Trinity and the intimacy of love of the
three Persons is our Homeland.
The strength of all Nyssian thought is thus continuously based upon
two pillars: the rst principle is the clear afrmation that only the Father,
the Son and the Holy Spirit are eternal and uncreated. Thus the divine
nature is clearly distinguished, in its transcendence, from every creature.
But precisely this clear afrmation, which would seem to distance man
from God, instead allows Gregory, once all subordinationist indecision
has been refuted, to formulate a second fundamental principle for all
of his thought: the connection between Trinitarian immanence and
economy.
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
The name of activity is not divided in the multiplicity of
Those who act, since the care for something is not particular
and exclusive to someone.
(AdAbl, GNO III/1, 48, 35)
In the AdAbl, Gregory must respond to those who object to him that,
according to his Trinitarian doctrine, as he speaks of three men, who
each have their own yet share the same
, so he should
speak of three gods and not of a unique God.
In Chapter I we started from the concept of universal nature, following the schema of the Nyssian reasoning, which moves from the
premise that man properly indicates the entire human nature. The fact
that the universal nature does not represent only a dialectical or rhetorical device, but constitutes, rather, a central concept of the whole
of Nyssian thought1 was shown.
In the rst part of the chapter it was shown how the Gregorian
concept of
is irreducible to any philosophical elaboration of the
period, as it reunites in itself an intensive aspect, by which it encapsulates the ontological depth of the , and an extensive aspect, which
permits the
to represent the whole of all men, manifesting in this
way the real inseparability of and . Human unity is in
itself perfect, in as much as image of the divine nature. The separation
introduced by sin cannot hinder, then, that man, in Christ and by the
action of the Holy Spirit, can return to unity and the full communion
for which he was created. This is possible since the created nature of
man has a historical and dynamic dimension; it is essentially temporal
and is manifested and perfected in activity. Thus time becomes profoundly positive, since Christ was incarnated, becoming one thing with
man. The Nyssian coherently afrms that the incarnation reached its
1
T. Ziegler writes: La rexion sur le concept mme de nature divine apparat ainsi
comme un axe central de la pense thologique de Grgoire de Nysse. Elle peut mme
tre regarde comme lun des ls conducteurs essentiels de son volution (T. Ziegler,
Les petits traits de Grgoire de Nysse, Doctoral Thesis, Strasbourg 1987, p. 363).
194
general conclusions
fullness in the death and resurrection of Christ, when he had penetrated

the totality of the temporal extension of human nature.
So activityis raised to a central category of Gregorys
thought. He afrms, in the second passage of the reasoning of the
treatise, that God is not a name of the divine nature, which in itself
is unknowable and ineffable, but of his , that is of his activity.
Throughout the second part of Chapter I, the value of the translation
of by activity was maintained: it is adapted to the Nyssian
use of the term and has the advantage of showing how is
predicated of both God and man.
So the distinction, later developed by Palamas, between essence and
should be understood as afrmation that every real being has
an activity that is characteristic of its nature. The ontological depth of
the essence cannot be reduced to a simple activity, since ontologically
activity depends upon nature, without which it would have no subsistence. At the same time and for the same motive, essence and activity
cannot be separated.
The Nyssian denition of as a movement of nature (

) is surely central: it shows the dependence of the activity on
nature, the motive for which there are two activities in Christ, but at
the same time it explicitates the connection with the person, that is the
subject that intervenes in the movement. It is on this level, in fact, that
the concept of assumes an irreplaceable role for the connection between Trinitarian immanence and economy.
Thus in the third and last part of Chapter I, the Nyssian conception
of the action of the three divine Persons was analyzed. For, once having reached this point, Gregory claried that one should not properly
speak of three men, since the nature is one and there is thus only the
man. But at the same time he undermined his own argument, afrming
that God is not a name of the divine nature, but of the divine activity.
Therefore the Nyssian must demonstrate that the divine action is in
itself a unique movement of the unique divine nature, in which, however, the three divine Persons intervene, each according to his proper
personal characteristic. The unity of action is Gregorys favourite argument and is situated in the context of intra-Trinitarian perichoresis.
Each Person intervenes according to the schema of --, in
which the Father is always the one and only source of Trinitarian
action, as he is also the one and only source of the Trinity itself; the
Son is he through whom ( ) the action progresses; and the
Spirit is he who brings to completion and perfects, thus giving unity
general conclusions
195
to the Trinitarian action, as it is he who, in as much as of

the Father and Son, closes the movement of intra-Trinitarian love and
leads dispersed man back to unity.
We thus come to the apex of the treatise. In fact, for the Arians the
of the Son, that is his central position in the intra-Trinitarian
dynamic, by which he receives all from the Father and gives all, was the
proof of his subordination to the rst Person. Instead Gregory shows
that it is precisely in this wanting to depend entirely on the Father to
give everything back to him, that is exactly in the total gift of self and
of all that is received, that the being of the Son, and thus also his mode
of being God, consists, that is the mode of the divine subsistence of
the second divine Person. In this sense the AdAbl and the social analogy
of the Trinity show that the essence of Nyssian thought consists in a
true and proper theology of liation.
The of the Son in the economy is the expression of that
Trinitarian intimacy: the economic is an extension of the immanent
one. And only if this is true has Gregory given an authentic response
to Eunomius (see p. 60).
Thus the action of the three divine Persons is unique, and for this
reason it is necessary to speak of God in the singular, since the term
indicates activity. On the other hand human activity is divided in the
single individuals, since each man acts for himself: thus one can speak,
even if improperly, of many men.
Nevertheless, if the difference between divine action and human
action were radical, the logical development of the treatise would have
no sense: one could not understand why Gregory went to the effort of
demonstrating the unity of the human nature. One must remember
that all of Nyssian theology moves from above to below, that is from
the Trinity to man, since human nature is created at the image of the
divine nature. For God the extensive and intensive dimensions of the
coincide, while for human nature it is not so, since it develops

and expands in time. It is in Christ, and thus in the eschatological
anticipation, that one must seek the authentic realization and denition
of human nature. As the passage of the InIllud proposed at the end of
Chapter III clearly shows, the unity that awaits humanity at the end
of time is the very Trinitarian unity itself, as is said in Jn 17.2123.
Reunited by the Spirit in the one Body of Christ, men will have access
to the Father, to the love of the Father. One can thus speak of an
analogous human perichoresis, realized by the third Person, since all men,
in the Son, can have part in the intra-Trinitarian perichoresis.
196
general conclusions
The rst Chapter concludes with some essential observations on

the concept of apokatastasis. Some interpreters, who tend to privilege
synchronic analysis over diachronic analysis, have seen in this movement towards the unity of nature a necessary and almost automatic
process. Nevertheless the opinion of other authoritative and authorized
interpreters places this conception seriously in doubt. Certainly Gregory
hoped in the salvation not only of each individual man, but also of
all of creation, for which one can see a profound and sincere love in
his writings. However he explicitly afrms the possibility of eternal
condemnation, which can take no other form than the end of being
human, in the knowledge deprived of participation. The damned would
simply have renounced Christ, who is the Model of every man, and
for this could no longer be a man.
In Chapter II attention was centered on the afrmation of the ineffability of the divine nature. In the rst place the Nyssian philosophy
of language was briey presented, which always gives primacy of
being over words. The ontological depth of every being renders its
nature inexpressible, a nature that, even if created, cannot be fully
expressed by the dynamics of language. In the case of the divine nature
this impossibility is radicalized, since the limit is not only due to the
passage from being to words, but is xed by the innity itself of the
divine nature. Thus in the second part of the AdAbl, Gregory moves
the discourse from being to mode of being, that is from nature to Person.
Nyssian apophatism thus presents a double aspect, which is manifested
even on the terminological level: on one hand it is a denite no to
whoever would like to reach God directly through nature, and on the
other hand it is a full yes to the Person, here understood in all of its
ontological profundity. The only possibility to reach God is Christ, thus
the path is the Person; the way is history.
For this reason the role of the Nyssian in the formation of the concept
of person was treated. From the Trinitarian foundation of person the
argument moved to the theology of name and to the accomplishment
of apophatism in its eminently positive aspect in the of Christ,
perfect in his humanity and in his divinity. Thanks to himthanks to
the mysteries of his lifeChristianity is the imitation of the divine
nature. It in fact consists in the imitation of the perfect Model, in the
imitation of his , which includes also a sacramental aspect, to reach
the participation of the unique and authentic .
However as one cannot contemplate the Father except in the Son,
in the same way, one cannot contemplate the Son except in the Holy
general conclusions
197
Spirit, the Glory, who identies us with him, making of us his Body.
For this reason the more Christological Chapter II naturally opens into
Chapter III, which is more pneumatological.
In the last part of the AdAbl the Nyssian concentrates on the Trinitarian immanence and discusses the personal distinction of the Father, the
Son and the Spirit. The theme of the procession of the third Person
is particularly interesting, and of great importance for ecumenical
dialogue. This is also due to the role of the Nyssian in the Council of
Constantinople I.
Gregory expresses the personal distinction introducing the principle
of the cause (), which is unique in the Trinity and is identied
with the Father. Then the Nyssian moves on to consider the Persons of
the Son and the Spirit, introducing a further distinction between that
which is directly caused, that is the second Person, and that which is
caused through the Son ( !), that is the third Person.
Despite the fact that the text and logical development of the AdAbl
leave no doubts on the immanent sense of this role of the Son in the
procession of the Spirit, the economic reduction of the Filioque, maintained by some protagonists of the ecumenical dialogue, has suggested
an extended analysis of the proper personal characteristic of the third
Person himself. For the ! can be understood only if one
realizes that the Spirit is the , the bond of intra-Trinitarian .2 His mode of being God, his mode of containing the
unique divine essence, is the "# $: that is, to carry to unity and
to constitute a whole. He is that Glory (%) that the Son possessed
before all time. And this Glory precisely, by the incarnation of the Son,
is communicated to every man that is thus re-established in the unity
of the Body of Christ, that leads to the Father.
In this way, the theology of light and glory, so dear to Gregory, is
absolutely irreducible to the economic level. Rather it is found to be
an irreplaceable instrument to show the connection and continuity
between economy and immanence.
It is thus impossible to oppose Christological, and thus historical,
mediation to the pneumatological one, as at times is suggested. For in
2
One thinks of the Thomistic afrmation: Praeterea, ad amorem tria requiruntur,
scilicet amans, id quod amatur, et ipse amor, ut Augustinus dicit in VIII de Trinitate.
Duo autem mutuo se amantes, sunt Pater et Filius; amor autem qui est eorum nexus
est Spiritus Sanctus. Sunt ergo tres personae in divinis. (Thomas Aquinas, De Potentia,
q. 9, a. 9, s.c. 4).
198
general conclusions
Gregory of Nyssa the ! is precisely the manner of expressing

the mediation of the Spirit who enters into history to lead the sensible
world and history itself, in Christ, back to the Father.
The fundamental category to understand the relation between nature
and person, in both God and man, is thus the in as much as
communion of love; in fact: the universe of persons is a world into
which one does not truly enter except by love.3
To conclude this commentary on the AdAbl in the context of the Nyssian work, one can note that Gregory manages to lay the foundations
for a true theology of history, understood as history and life of each
man. E. Cavalcanti has already observed that this theme is extremely
tied to the problem of the divinity of the Holy Spirit.4 The theological
clarity that the Nyssian showed during the Council of Constantinople
I permitted him to deepen the role of the third Person in the history
of men in passage towards perfect identication with Christ.
This development is required by the very conception of humanity
as universal nature,5 the foundation for the social analogy of the Trinity. Activity, understood as a bridge between person and
nature, is a central theological instrument: the imitation of activity, that
is , is a path for the imitation of the divine nature, the essence
of Christianity. Through the Person of Christ, through the events
of his , the acta et passa Christi, we have access to . The very
development of the concept of person leads into the limelight the
responsibility of man in history. The principle of Nyssian &#'
and the connection between protology and eschatology contribute to
give a foundation to the theological conception of history. Finally, the
divine action understood as model of human action leads to regard
daily life with the eyes of eternity, thinking radically of our neighbour. The connection between Trinitarian economy and immanence
should, then, be translated into the connection between the economy
3
Lunivers des personnes est un monde o lon nentre vraiment que par lamour
( J. Mouroux, Je crois en Toi, Paris 1966, p. 56).
4
Cfr. E. Cavalcanti, Teologia trinitaria e teologia della storia in alcuni testi di Gregorio di
Nissa. Aug. 16 (1976) 117124.
5
H. de Lubac has demonstrated it clearly. One thinks of the afrmations: Si notre
salut est dessence sociale, lhistoire tout entire devient, entre Dieu et chacun dentre
nous, le truchement oblig (H. de Lubac, Catholicisme, Paris 1952, p. 108); Si, en effet,
le salut que Dieu nous offre est le salut du genre humain, puisque ce genre humain vit et
se dveloppe dans le temps, lexpos de ce salut prendra naturellement la forme dune
histoire: ce sera lhistoire de la pntration de lhumanit par le Christ. (Ibidem, p. 92).
general conclusions
199
and immanence of every single man, whose activity cannot negate the
divine image that he carries in his heart.
In this way, in synthesis, as J. Danilou has already noted well: Next
to the philosophy of being, the thought of Gregory is a philosophy of
time. And it is perhaps the union of these two aspects, Zeit und Sein,
which is the fundamental mark of his synthesis.6 In the development
of Nyssian thought time ceases to be a fruit of the fall, to become, in
Christ, an eminently positive element.7 This is so since the foundation
of all of Gregorys theological construction is the connection between
economy and immanence.
This attention of the Nyssian on time and history is founded, in fact,
on the afrmation of the distinction without separation of )#
and , which permits to understand the relation of )#
and with the linked sphere of !.8
The general picture presented here obviously depends upon the
reading of the social analogy of the Trinity in the context of the
whole of Nyssian thought. It must be situated inside the relationship
of correspondence between &*+ and # , inseparable from Nyssian
Christology and eschatology.
The results of the research group directed by S. Coakley are quite
interesting and offer a useful pars destruens to the scholar of Gregory,
one that moves the reading of the social analogy from the merely
psychological level to the more properly ontological one. Nevertheless
the greatness of Nyssian thought pushes one not to stop, but to continue the work and unfold a necessary pars construens, moving from the
ontological level to the theological one.
The authentic signication of the social analogy of the Trinity is to
be sought in the connection between Trinitarian doctrine, Christology
and anthropology. In a certain sense it could be said that it says nothing on God, but everything on man: the application of the categories
6
A ct dune philosophie de ltre, la pense de Grgoire est une philosophie du
temps. Et cest peut-tre lunion de ces deux traits, Zeit und Sein, quest le trait fondamental de sa synthse ( J. Danilou, Ltre et le Temps chez Grgoire de Nysse, Leiden 1970,
p. viiiix).
7
In reference to this attention to temporal development, J. Danilou comments: la
parent ici de Grgoire et dIrne peut poser le problme dune tradition asiate propre. (Ibidem, p. vii ). See, for Ireneus and the theology of history: J. Danilou, Saint Irne
et les origines de la thologie de lhistoire, RSR 34 (1947) 227231.
8
Cfr. G. Maspero, ,-./.012, .13.4.512 e 167.812: La teologia della storia di Gregorio di Nissa, Excerpta e dissertationibus in Sacra Theologia 45 (2003) 383451.
200
general conclusions
of and
to both, read in the schema of exitus-reditus on
the basis of the theology of the image, manifests the unique vocation
of man, called in Christ to be loved by the Father as the Body of the
Son, founding in the Trinity itself the dignity of every man, of his
history and of his life.
Even if it is true that the activity of each human person is radically
different than the unique activity of the three divine Persons, one cannot
forget that for Gregory every man is called to the voluntary imitation
( ) of the very life and activity of Christ, which permits to reach,
in the now of history as an eschatological anticipation, the unity of his
Body and the intimacy of the Trinitarian love.
The attention dedicated here to the concept of universal nature and
social analogy of the Trinity is dictated by the hope that in this way
the actuality of Nyssian thought can once again be shown, according to the words with which J. Danilou nished the introduction to
Ltre et le Temps: we would like to say in closing that we wish that this
historical work be also a contribution to the renewal of philosophical
thought in Christianity. It unites the solidity of research and the delity of faith. It is in contact with the thought of his time, but is not the
slave of it. It carries at once the sense of being and that of history. It
unites condence in the capacity of the intelligence to grasp the real
and the sense of the inexhaustible mystery that the real represents in
reference to all that the intelligence can grasp. Now, this responds to
what we seek today.9
9
Nous voudrions dire en terminant que nous souhaitons que ce travail historique
soit aussi une contribution au renouveau de la pense philosophique dans le Christianisme. Elle unit la hardiesse de la recherche et la dlit de la foi. Elle est au contact de
la pense de son temps, mais elle nen est pas esclave. Elle comporte la fois le sens de
ltre et celui de lhistoire. Elle unit la conance dans laptitude de lintelligence saisir
le rel et le sens du mystre inpuisable que le rel reprsente lgard de tout ce quen
peut saisir lintelligence. Or tout ceci rpond ce que nous cherchons aujourd hui.
( J. Danilou, Ltre et le Temps . . ., p. x).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cited Works and Abbreviations
The works are listed in Alphabetical order of titles, which corresponds to the alphabetical
order of the abbreviations. The GNO was used as much as possible, except for in
the case of DeVitaMo, where the edition of J. Danilou in SC 1 was preferred.
AdAbl = Ad Ablabium, Quod Non Sint Tres Dei, ed. Fridericus Mueller: GNO III/1, pp.
3757.
AdArium = Adversus Arium et Sabellium, De Patre et Filio, ed. Fridericus Mueller: GNO
III/1, pp. 7185.
AdEust = Ad Eustathium, De Sancta Trinitate, ed. Fridericus Mueller: GNO III/1, pp.
316.
AdGraec = Ad Graecos (Ex Communibus Notionibus), ed. Fridericus Mueller: GNO III/1,
pp. 1933.
AdSimp = Ad Simplicium, De Fide, ed. Fridericus Mueller: GNO III/1, pp. 6167.
AdTheo = Ad Theophilum, Adversus Apolinaristas, ed. Fridericus Mueller: GNO III/1, pp.
119128.
AdMac = Adversus Macedonianos, De Spiritu Sancto, ed. Fridericus Mueller: GNO III/1,
pp. 89115.
Antir = Antirreticus Adversus Apolinarium, ed. Fridericus Mueller: GNO III/1, pp. 131233.
ApHex = Apologia in Hexaemeron, PG 44, 61124.
CE I = Contra Eunomium Libri, I, ed. Wernerus Jaeger: GNO I, pp. 22225.
CE II = Contra Eunomium Libri, II, ed. Wernerus Jaeger: GNO I, pp. 226409.
CEIII = Contra Eunomium Libri, III, ed. Wernerus Jaeger: GNO II, pp. 3311.
ConFa = Contra Fatum, ed. Jacobus McDonough: GNO III/2, pp. 3163.
DeAn = De Anima et Resurrectione, PG 46.12160.
DeBeat = De Beatitudinibus, ed. Johannes F. Callahan: GNO VII/2, pp. 75170.
DeDeit = De Deitate Filii et Spiritus Sancti, ed. Ernestus Rhein: GNO X/2, pp. 115
144.
DeDeitEv = De Deitate Adversus Euagrium (vulgo, In Suam Ordinationem Oratio), ed. Ernestus
Gebhardt: GNO IX, pp. 331341.
DeHom = De Hominis Opicio, PG 44. 125256.
DeInfant = De Infantibus Praemature Abreptis, ed. Hadwiga Horner: GNO III/2, pp. 6797.
DeInst = De Instituto Christiano, ed. Wernerus Jaeger: GNO VIII/1, pp. 4089.
DeMort = De Mortuis Oratio, ed. Gunterus Heil: GNO IX, pp. 2868.
DeOrDom = De Oratione Dominica, ed. Johannes F. Callahan: GNO VII/2, pp. 174.
DePerf = De Perfectione, ed. Wernerus Jaeger: GNO VIII/1, pp. 173214.
DeProf = De Professione Christiana, ed. Wernerus Jaeger: GNO VIII/1, pp. 129142.
DeSpir = De Spiritu Sancto sive in Pentecosten, ed. Margarete Altenburger: GNO X/2, pp.
285292.
DeTrid = De Tridui Inter Mortem et Resurrectionem Domini Nostri Iesu Christi Spatio (vulgo, In
Christi Resurrectionem Oratio I), ed. Ernestus Gebhardt: GNO IX, pp. 273306.
DeVirg = De Virginitate, ed. Johannes P. Cavarnos: GNO VIII/1, pp. 247343.
DeVita = De Vita Gregorii Thaumaturgi, ed. Gunterus Heil: GNO X/1, pp. 357.
DeVitaMo = De Vita Moysis, ed. J. Danilou, Grgoire de Nysse. La vie de Mose, SC 1, Paris
1968, pp. 44326.
Ep = Epistulae, ed. Georgius Pasquali: GNO VIII/2.
InAscen = In Ascensionem Christi Oratio, ed. Ernestus Gebhardt: GNO IX, pp. 323327.
202
bibliography
InCant = In Canticum Canticorum, ed. Hermannus Langerbeck: GNO VI.

InDiem = In Diem Natalem, ed. Friedhelm Mann: GNO X/2, pp. 233269.
InDiemLu = In Diem Luminum (vulgo, In Baptismum Christi Oratio), ed. Ernestus Gebhardt:
GNO IX, pp. 221242.
InEccl = In Ecclesiasten Homiliae, ed. Paulus Alexander: Vol. V, pp. 277442.
InIllud = In Illud: Tunc et Ipse Filius, ed. Joseph Kenneth Downing: GNO III/2, pp. 328.
InInsPs = In Inscriptiones Psalmorum, ed. Jacobus McDonough: GNO V, pp. 24175.
InLucif = In luciferam sanctam domini resurrectionem (vulgo In Christi resurrectionem oratio V),
ed. Ernestus Gebhardt: GNO IX, pp. 315319.
InSSteI = In Sanctum Stephanum I, ed. Otto Lendle: GNO X/1, pp. 7594.
OrCat = Oratio Catechetica Magna, ed. Ekkehard Mhlenberg: GNO III/4.
OrFuMel = Oratio Funebris in Meletium Episcopum, ed. Andreas Spira: GNO IX, pp. 441457.
RCE = Refutatio Confessionis Eunomii, ed. Wernerus Jaeger: GNO II, pp. 312410.
Dictionaries, Concordances and other Sources
M. AltenburgerF. Mann, Bibliographie zu Gregor von Nyssa: Editionenbersetzungen
Literatur, Leiden 1988
M. Aubineau, Grgoire de Nysse. Trait de la virginit, SC 119, Paris 1966
A. Bailly, Dictionnaire Grec-Franais, Paris 1950
M. Bandini, Gregorio di Nissa. Contro il fato, Bologna 2003
C. Blanc, Commentaire sur Saint Jean. Origne, SC 120 Paris 1966
F. BlassA. Debrunner, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, Gttingen 1984
J. Burnet, Platonis opera, Oxford 19671968
Y. Courtonne, Lettres. Saint Basil, Paris 19571966
J.H. Declerck, Maximi Confessoris Quaestiones et dubia, Turnhout 1982
E. Diehl, Procli Diadochi in Platonis Timaeum commentaria, Amsterdam 1965
H. Drobner, Bibelindex zu den Werken Gregors von Nyssa, Paderborn 1988
H.J. Drossaart Lulofs, Aristotelis de generatione animalium, Oxford 1972
O. Faller, De Spiritu Sancto libri tres, CSEL 79, Vindobonae 1964
P. Gallay, Lettres thologiques, SC 208, Paris 1974
, Discours. Grgoire de Nazianze (2731), SC 250, Paris 1978
M. Geerard, Clavis Patrum Graecorum, Turnhout 1974
A. Gerlo, Tertulianus. Opera montanistica, CCSL 2, Turnholti 1954
B. P. Grenfell, An Alexandrian erotic fragment and other Greek papyri chiey Ptolemaic, Oxford 1896
R.P.C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, Edinburgh 1988
W.W. Harvey, Sancti Irenaei episcopi Lugdunensis libri quinque adversus haereses, Cambridge 1857
M. Hayduck, Alexandri Aphrodisiensis in Aristotelis metaphysica commentaria [Commentaria
in Aristotelem Graeca I], Berlin 1891
B. Kotter, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, Berlin 1969
W. Kroll, Syriani in metaphysica commentaria [Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca
VI/1], Berlin 1902
C.G. Khn, Claudii Galeni opera omnia, Hildesheim 19641965
G.W.H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek lexicon, Oxford 1968
H.G. LiddellR. Scott, A Greek-English lexicon, Oxford 1863
H. Maehler, Pindari carmina cum fragmentis, Leipzig 1989
F. Mann, Lexicon Gregorianum: Wrterbuch zu den Schriften Gregors von Nyssa, Leiden
19992001
M. Marcovich, Iustini martyris Apologiae pro Christianis, PTS 47, Berlino-New York 1994
, Tatiani Oratio ad Graecos. Theophili Antiochieni Ad Autolycum, PTS 43/44, BerlinoNew York 1995
L.F. Mateo-SecoG. Maspero, Diccionario de San Gregorio de Nisa, Burgos 2006
C. Moreschini, Discours. Grgoire de Nazianze (3841), SC 358, Paris 1990
J. Mossay, Discours. Grgoire de Nazianze (2023), SC 270, Paris 1980
bibliography
203
W.J. Mountain, Sancti Aurelii Augustini De Trinitate libri XV, CCSL 50/1, Turnholti
1968
H. Musurillo, Mthode dOlympe. Le banquet, SC 95, Paris 1963
H.G. Opitz, Athanasius Werke, II, Berlin 1940
E. Perrella, Gregorio Palamas. Atto e luce divina: scritti losoci e teologici, Milano 2003
B. Pruche, Trait du Saint-Esprit. Basile de Csare, SC 17, Paris 1947
A. RousseauB. HemmerdingerL. DoutreleauC. Mercier, Irne de Lyon. Contre
les hrsies, SC 100, Paris 1965; SC 211, Paris 1974; SC 153, Paris 1969
F. Sagnard, Clment DAlexandrie. Extraits de Thodote, SC 23, Paris 1970
Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones disputatae, t. 2: Quaestiones disputatae de potentia. Ed. P.M.
Pession, Taurini-Romae 1965
, Opera omnia iussu impensaque Leonis XIII P. M. edita, t. 45: Pars prima Summae theologiae, Romae 18881889
, Liber de veritate catholicae Fidei contra errores indelium seu Summa contra Gentiles, t. 23.
Ed. P. MarcC. PeraP. Caramello, Taurini-Romae 1961
, Opera omnia iussu Leonis XIII P. M. edita, t. 40 A: Contra errores Graecorum ad Urbanum
papam, Romae 1969
Monographs
T.L. Anastos, Essence, Energies and Hypostasis: an Epistemological Analysis of the Eastern
Orthodox Model of God, Ph.D. Diss., Yale University 1986
A. Aranda, Estudios de pneumatologa, Pamplona 1985
F.T. Arecchi, I simboli e la realt, Milano 1990
A. Asnaghi, Storia ed escatologia del pensiero russo, Genova 1973
, Luccello di fuoco. Storia della losoa russa, Sotto il Monte (BG) 2003
L. Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy: an Approach to Fourth-century Trinitarian Theology, Oxford
2004
D.L. Bals, Metousia Theou: mans participation in Gods perfection according to St. Gregory,
Roma 1966
H. von Balthasar, Prsence et pense, Paris 1947
O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der Altkirchlichen Literatur III, Freiburg im Breisgau 1913
K. Barth, Dogmatique, Ginevra 1953
J. Bernardi, La prdication des Pres Cappadociens. Le prdicateur et son auditoire, Paris 1968
B. Bobrinskoy, Le Mystre de la Trinit, Paris 1986
R.E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, 1: IXII (The Anchor Bible 29.1), Garden
City 1986
S. Bulgakov, Le Paraclet, Paris 1946
G. Caldarelli, S. Gregorio di Nissa, La preghiera del Signore, Milano 1983
O. Clment, Byzance et le Christianisme, Paris 1964
S. Coakley (Ed.), Re-thinking Gregory of Nyssa, Malden 2003
P.M. Collins, Trinitarian Theology West and East, Oxford 2001
G. Colombo, Teologia Sacramentaria, Milano 1997
Y. Congar, Je crois en lEsprit Saint III, Paris 1980
G. Dal Toso, La nozione di proairesis in Gregorio di Nissa, Frankfurt am Main 1998
J. Danilou, Platonisme et thologie mystique. Doctrine spirituelle de saint Grgoire de Nysse, Paris
1944
, Ltre et le Temps chez Grgoire de Nysse, Leiden 1970
, Thologie du judo-Christianisme, Tournai 1958
J. DanilouH. Musurillo, From glory to glory, New York 1979
Cl. Desalvo, Loltre nel presente, la losoa delluomo in Gregorio di Nissa, Milano 1996
J. K. Downing, The Treatise of Gregory of Nyssa: In illud: Tunc et ipse Filius. A Critical
text with Prolegomena. Diss. Harvard Univ., Cambridge 1947
S. Elm, Virgins of God: The Making of Ascetism in Late Antiquity, Oxford 1994
204
bibliography
B. Forte, Teologia della storia, Cinisello Balsamo 1991

, Trinit come storia. Saggio sul Dio cristiano, Cinisello Balsamo 1997
J. Gath, La conception de la libert chez Grgoire de Nysse, Paris 1953
P. Gemeinhardt, Die Filioque-Kontroverse zwischen Ost- und Westkirche im Frhmittelalter,
New York 2002
P.M. Gregorios, Cosmic Man, New Delhi 1980
R. Guardini, Religise Gestalten in Dostojewskijs Werk, Paderborn 1989
, Das Ende der Neuzeit, Basel 1950
M. Gomes de Castro, Die Trinittslehre des Gregor von Nyssa, Freiburg 1938
W. Jaeger, Gregor von Nyssas Lehre vom Heiligen Geist. (H. Drrie Ed.), Leiden 1966
, Early Christianity and Greek Paideia, Harvard 1961
, Two Rediscovered Works of Ancient Christian Literature: Gregory of Nyssa and Macarius,
Leiden 1965
A. Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte II, Tbingen, 1909
M.A.G. Haykin, The Spirit of God: the Exegesis of 1 and 2 Corinthians in the Pneumatomachian
Controversy of the Fourth Century, Leiden 1994
K. Holl, Amphilochius von Ikonium in seinem Verhltnis zu den grossen Kappadoziern dargestellt,
Darmstadt 1969
R. Hbner, Die Einheit des Leibes Christi bei Gregor von Nyssa, Leiden, 1974
E. von Ivnka, Plato Christianus, Einsiedeln 1964
R.J. Kees, Die Lehre von der Oikonomia Gottes in der Oratio Catechetica Gregors von Nyssa,
Leiden 1995
W. Klaghofer, Gotteswort im Menschenwort. Inhalt und Form von Theologie nach Hans Urs
von Balthasar, Innsbruck-Wien 1992
G. Lafont, Peut-on connatre Dieu en Jsus-Christ?, Paris 1969
V. Lossky, Thologie Mystique de lglise dOrient, Aubier 1944
, Vision de Dieu, Neuchtel 1962
H. de Lubac, Catholicisme, Paris 1952
G. Lozza, Gregorio di Nissa: Discorso sui defunti, Torino 1991
M. Ludlow, Universal Salvation: Eschatology in the Thought of Gregory of Nyssa and Karl
Rahner, Oxford 2000
B. de Margerie, La Trinit chrtienne dans lhistoire, Paris 1975
A. Meredith, Gregory of Nyssa, London 1999
A. Milano, Persona in teologia, Roma 1996
, La Trinit dei teologi e dei loso. Lintelligenza della persona di Dio, Napoli 1987
L.F. Mateo-Seco, Estudios sobre la cristologa de San Gregorio de Nisa, Pamplona 1978
J. Meyendorff, S. Grgoire Palamas et la mystique orthodoxe, Paris 1959
, The Byzantine Legacy in the Orthodox Church, New York 1982
, A Study of Gregory Palamas, London 1964
B. Mondin, La Trinit mistero damore: trattato di teologia trinitaria, Bologna 1993
J. Mouroux, Je crois en Toi, Paris 1966
E.D. Moutsoulas,
, Atene 1997
E. Muehlenberg, Die Unendlichkeit Gottes bei Gregor von Nyssa. Gregors Kritik am Gottesbegriff
der klassischen Metaphysik, Gttingen 1966
P. Musso, Filosoa del caos, Milano 1997
F. Ocriz, Naturaleza, gracia, gloria, Pamplona 2000
G. Philips, Lunion personnelle avec le Dieu vivant. Essai sur lorigine et le sens de la grce cre,
Gembloux 1972
I. Pochoshajew, Die Seele bei Plato, Plotin, Porphyr und Gregor von Nyssa, Frankfurt am
Main 2004
G. Podskalsky, Theologie und Philosophie in Byzanz, Mnchen 1977
B. Pottier, Dieu et le Christ selon Grgoire de Nysse, Turnhout 1994
G.L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought, London 1952
J. Ratzinger, Einfhrung in das Christentum, Ksel 1968
bibliography
205
, Das Neue Volk Gottes. Entwrfe zur Ekklesiologie, Dsseldorf 1969

, Dogma e predicazione, Brescia 1974
Th. de Rgnon, tudes de thologie positive sur la sainte Trinit, III, Paris 1898
Ph.G. Renczes, Agir de Dieu et libert de lhomme, Paris 2003
B. SalmonaS. Depaoli, Il linguaggio nella patristica: Gregorio di Nissa e Agostino. Genova 1995
L. ScheffczykA. Ziegenaus, Katholische Dogmatik, II, Aachen 1996
C. von Schnborn, Licne du Christ, Paris 1986
M. Simonetti, La crisi ariana nel IV secolo, Roma 1975
V. Solovv, La Russia e la Chiesa universale, Milano 1989
Y. Spiteris, Palamas: la grazia e lesperienza, Roma 1996
A. Staglian, Il mistero del Dio vivente, Bologna 1996
B. Studer, Dio Salvatore nei Padri della Chiesa, Roma 1986
J. Tixeront, Histoire des dogmes dans lantiquit chrtienne, II, Paris 1924
L. Turcescu, Gregory of Nyssa and the Concept of Divine Persons, Oxford 2005
A.A. Weiswurm, The nature of human knowledge according to Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Washington 1952
J.M. Yanguas Sanz, Pneumatologa de San Basilio, Pamplona 1983
J. Zachhuber, Human Nature in Gregory of Nyssa: Philosophical Background and Theological
Signicance, Leiden 2000
T. Ziegler, Les petits traits de Grgoire de Nysse, Doctoral Thesis, Strasbourg 1987
M. Zupi (Ed.), Gregorio di Nissa: Le belle ascese, Padova 2001
Articles
Ch. Apostolopoulos,
. Anmerkungen zur Vorstellung vom Unbestimmten-Unendlichen
der gttlichen Natur bei Gregor von Nyssa, StPatr 37 (2001) 311.
R. Arnou, Unit numrique et unit de nature chez les Pres aprs le Concile de Nice, Greg. 15
(1934) 242254.
L. Ayres, Not Three People: The Fundamental Themes of Gregory of Nyssas Trinitarian Theology
as Seen in To Ablabius: On Not Three Gods, 445474.
E. Bailleux, Le personalisme trinitaire des Pres grecs, MSR 27 (1970) 325.
D.L. Bals, Plenitudo Humanitatis: The Unity of Human Nature in the Theology of Gregory
of Nyssa, in D.F. Winslow (Ed.), Disciplina Nostra: Essays in Memory of Robert F. Evans,
Cambridge MA 1979, 115133.
, The Unity of human nature in Basils and Gregory of Nyssas polemics against Eunomius,
StPatr 14 (1976) 275281.
M.P. Begzos, Apophaticism in the Theology of the Eastern Church: The Modern Critical Function
of a Traditional Theory, GOTR 41 (1996) 327357.
M.M. Bergad, La condemnation de lesclavage dans lHomlie IV, in S.G. Hall, Gregory of
Nyssa: Homilies on Ecclesiastes, New York 1993, pp. 185196.
W. Blum, Eine Verbindung der zwei Hhlengleichnisse der heidnischen Antike bei Gregor von Nyssa,
VigChr 28 (1974) 4349.
B. Bolotov, Thses sur le Filioque, Ist. 17 (1972) 261289.
B. Botte, In unitate Spiritus Sancti, MD 23 (1950) 4963.
J.R. Bouchet, Le vocabulaire de lunion et du rapport des natures chez S. Grgoire de Nysse,
R. Thom 68 (1968) 533582.
F. Bourassa, Personne et conscience en thologie trinitaire, Gr. 55 (1974) 471493; 677720.
R.S. Brightman, Apophatic Theology and Divine Innity in St. Gregory of Nyssa, GOTR 18
(1973) 97114.
J.B. Cahill, The Date and Setting of Gregory of Nyssas Commentary on the Song of Songs,
JThS 32 (1981) 447460.
M. Canvet, Lhumanit de lembryon selon Grgoire de Nysse, NRT 114 (1992) 678695.
, La mort du Christ et le mystre de sa personne humano-divine dans la thologie du IVme sicle,
Les Quatre Fleuves 1516 (1982) 7192.
206
bibliography
Ph. Caspar, Comment les Pres de lEglise envisagent le statut de lembryon humain, Connaissance des Pres de lEglise 52 (1993) 1618.
G. Celada, La catequesis sacramental y bautismal de Gregorio de Nisa, CTom 101 (1974) 565665.
, Unidad de los sacramentos de la iniciacin cristiana, Nicolaus 4 (1976) 139174.
J. Chn, Unus de Trinitate passus est, RSR 53 (1965) 545588.
O. Clment, Grgoire de Chypre De lekporse du Saint-Esprit, Ist. 17 (1972) 443456.
S. Coakley, Rethinking Gregory of Nyssa: IntroductionGender, Trinitarian Analogies, and the
Pedagogy of The Song, MoTh 18 (2002) 431443.
E. Corsini, Plrme humain et plrme cosmique chez Grgoire de Nysse, in M. Harl (ed), criture
et culture philosophique dans la pense de Grgoire de Nysse, Leiden 1971, 111126.
J. Danilou, [in] Bulletin dhistoire des origines chrtiennes, RSR 55 (1967) 115118.
, La notion de personne chez les Pres grecs, Bulletin des Amis du Card. Danilou
19 (1983) 310.
, La chronologie des oeuvres de Grgoire de Nysse, StPatr 7 (1966) 159169.
, Lapocatastase chez Saint Grgoire de Nysse, RSR 30 (1940) 328347.
, La chronologie des sermons de Grgoire de Nysse, RevSR 29 (1955) 346372.
, Le symbolisme cosmique de la Croix, MD 75 (1963) 2336.
, Christologie et eschatologie, in Das Konzil von Chalkedon III, (A. GrillmeierH. Bacht
Eds.), Wrzburg 1954, pp. 269286.
, Mystique de la tnbre chez Grgoire de Nysse, in DSp II/2, cc. 18721885.
, Eunome larien et lexgse no-platonicienne du Cratyle, REG 69 (1956) 412432.
T.J. Dennis, The Relationship Between Gregory of Nyssas Attack on Slavery in his Fourth Homily
on Ecclesiastes and his Treatise De Hominis Opicio, StPatr 17 (1982) 10651072.
J. Dillon, Origens Doctrine of the Trinity and Some Later Neoplatonic Theories, in D.J. OMeara,
Neoplatonism and Christian Thought, New York 1982, pp. 1923
J.K. Downing, The Treatise of Gregory of Nyssa In Illud: Tunc et Ipse Filius, A Critical Text
wih Prolegomena, HSCP, 5859 (1948) 221223.
D.F. Duclow, Gregory of Nyssa and Nicholas of Cusa: Innity, Anthropology and the Via Negativa,
DR 92 (1974) 102109.
F. Dnzl, Gregor von Nyssas Homilien zum Canticum auf dem Hintergrund seiner Vita
Moysis, VigChr 44 (1990) 371381.
B. Duvick, The Trinitarian Tracts of Gregory of Nyssa, in H.R. DrobnerA. Vinciano
(Ed.), Gregory of Nyssa: Homilies on the Beatitudes, Leiden 2000, pp. 581592.
P. Fedwick, A Commentary of Gregory of Nyssa or the 38th Letter of Basil of Caesarea. OrChrP
44 (1978) 3151.
E. Ferguson, Some Aspects of Gregory of Nyssas Moral Theology in the Homilies on Ecclesiastes, in
S.G. Hall, Gregory of Nyssa: Homilies on Ecclesiastes, New York 1993, pp. 319336.
G. Florovsky, Eschatology in the Patristic Age: an Introduction, StPatr 2 (1957) 235250.
B. Forte, El Espritu Santo y Jess de Nazaret, ScrTh 30 (1998) 813829.
J. Garrigues, Thologie et Monarchie. Lentre dans le mystre du sein du Pre ( Jn 1,18) comme
ligne directrice de la thologie apophatique dans la tradition orientale, Ist. 15 (1970) 435465.
, Procession et ekporse du Saint Esprit. Discernement de la tradition et rception oecumnique,
Ist. 17 (1972) 345366.
, La reciprocidad trinitaria del Espritu Santo, con respecto al Padre y al Hijo, ScrTh 30
(1998) 807812.
, la suite de la Clarication romaine sur le Filioque, NRT 119 (1997) 321334.
S. Gonzlez, El realismo platnico de S. Gregorio de Nisa, Gr. 20 (1939) 189206.
, La identidad de operacin en las obras exteriores y la unidad de naturaleza divina en la teologa
trinitaria de S. Gregorio de Nisa, Gr. 19 (1938) 280301.
G. Habra, The Sources of the Doctrine of Gregory Palamas on the Divine Energies, ECQ 12
(1957/8) 244252; 294303; 338347.
A. de Halleux, Manifest par le Fils. Aux origines dune formule pneumatologique, RTL 20
(1989) 331.
bibliography
207
, Palamisme et Tradition, Irn. 48 (1975) 479493.

, Palamisme et Scolastique, RTL 4 (1973) 409442.
N. Harrison, Human Community as an Image of the Holy Trinity, SVTQ 46 (2002)
347364.
J-Ph. Houdret, Palamas et les Cappadociens, Ist. 19 (1974) 260271.
R. Hbner, Gregor von Nyssa als Verfasser der sog. ep. 38 des Basilius. Zum unterschiedlichen
Verstndnis der Ousia bei den Kappadoziern Brdern, in J. FontaineC. Kannengiesser
(edd.), Epektasis: Mlanges patristiques offerts au Card. J. Danilou, Beauchesne 1972,
463490.
, Gregor von Nyssa und Markell von Ankyra, in M. Harl (ed), criture et culture philosophique
dans la pense de Grgoire de Nysse, Leiden 1971, 199229.
J. Ibez F. Mendoza, El valor del trmino hypstasis en el libro I contra Eunomio de
Gregorio de Nisa, in L.F. Mateo Seco (ed.), El Contra Eunomium I en la produccin literaria de Gregorio de Nisa (VI Coloquio Internacional sobre Gregorio de Nisa), Eunsa,
Pamplona 1988, pp. 329337.
, Naturaleza de la Eusebeia en Gregorio de Nisa, in H. DrrieM. Altenberger
U. Schramm (dir), Gregor von Nyssa und die Philosophie, Zweites Internationales Kolloquium
ber Gregor von Nyssa, Freckenhorst bei Mnster 1823 September 1972, Leiden
1976, pp. 261277.
G. Isaye, Lunit de lopration divine dans les crits trinitaires de S. Grgoire de Nysse, RSR 27
(1937) 422439.
E. von Ivnka, Von Platonismus zur Theorie der Mystik, Schol. 11 (1936) 163195.
, Hellenisches im Hesichasmus. Das Antinomische der Energienlehre, in Epektasis: Mlanges
patristiques offerts au Cardinal J. Danilou, ed. J. Fontaine et Kannengiesser, Paris 1972,
491500.
B. Krivocheine, Simplicit de la nature divine et les distinctions en Dieu selon Grgoire de Nysse,
StPatr 16 (1985) 389411.
M. Laird, Apophasis and Logophasis in Gregory of Nyssas Commentarius in Canticum Canticorum,
StPatr 37 (2001) 126132.
A. Lallemand, Livresse chez Basile et Grgoire de Nysse, StPatr 37 (2001) 133139.
J.C. Larchet, La question du Filioque, Theol(A) 70 (1999) 761812.
J.T. Lienhard, The exegesis of 1 Co 15, 2428 from Marcellus of Ancyra to Theodoret of
Cyrus, VigChr 37 (1983) 340359.
V. Lossky, Le Problme de la Vision face face et la Tradition patristique de Byzance, StPatr
2/2 (1957) 512537.
, The Procession of the Holy Spirit in the Orthodox Triadology, ECQ 7 (1948) 3153.
J.J. Lynch, PROSPON in Gregory of Nyssa: a Theological Word in Transition, TS 40 (1979)
728738.
L. Malevez, LEglise dans le Christ. tude de thologie historique et thorique, RSR 25 (1935) 257291.
P. Maraval, La date de la mort de Basile de Csare, REAug 34 (1988) 2538
B. de Margerie, Chalcdoine, Hier, Aujourdhui et Demain, EeV 92 (1982) 305312.
E. Marotta, Lironia e altri schemi nel Contra Fatum di San Gregorio di Nissa, VetChr 4
(1967) 85105.
H.-I. Marrou, Une thologie de la musique chez Grgoire de Nysse? in Epektasis: Mlanges
patristiques offerts au Card. J. Danilou, Beauchesne 1972, pp. 501508.
G. Maspero, La cristologa de Gregorio de Nisa desde la perspectiva del II Concilio de Costantinopla, ScrTh 36 (2004) 124.
, Lo schema dellexitus-reditus e lapocatastasi in Gregorio di Nissa, Annales theologici
18 (2004) 85111.
, ,
e : La teologia della storia di Gregorio di Nissa,
Excerpta e dissertationibus in Sacra Theologia 45 (2003) 383451.
, El Espritu, la Cruz y la unidad: , y en Gregorio de Nisa,
ScrTh 38 (2006) 445471.
208
bibliography
, La dimensione trinitaria della dignit delluomo. LAd Ablabium e lanalogia sociale di Gregorio
di Nissain A. Rodrguez LuoE. Colom (edd.), Teologia ed Etica Politica, Roma
2005, pp. 149170.
L.F. Mateo-Seco, La unidad y la gloria, in J. Chapa (Ed.), Signum et testimonium. Estudios
ofrecidos al Profesor Antonio Garca-Moreno en su 70 cumpleaos, Pamplona 2003, pp.
179198.
, La vida de Cristo en la Oratio catechetica magna, in J.R. Villar (ed.), Communio et
sacramentum, Pamplona 2003, pp. 179200.
, La Procesin del Espritu Santo en la Refutatio Confessionis Eunomii, in Atti del Congresso
Teologico Internazionale di Pneumatologia I, Roma 1983, 181187.
, Imitacin y seguimiento de Cristo en Gregorio de Nisa, ScrTh 33 (2001) 601622.
, Knosis, exaltacin de Cristo y apocatstasis en la exgesis a Filipenses 2, 511 de Gregorio
de Nisa, ScrTh 3 (1971) 301340.
, Cristologia e Linguaggio in Gregorio di Nissa, in C. MoreschiniG. Menestrina
(Eds.), Lingua e teologia nel cristianesimo greco, Trento 1112 dicembre 1997, Brescia
1999, 227249.
, Consideraciones en torno a la muerte en las homilas al Eclesiasts de Gregorio de Nisa,
ScrTh 23 (1991) 921937.
, La teologa de la muerte en la Oratio catechetica magna de San Gregorio de Nisa, ScrTh
1 (1969) 453473.
, La muerte y su ms all en el Dialogus de anima et resurrectione de San Gregorio de Nisa,
ScrTh 3 (1971) 71107.
, Resucit al tercer da (Anlisis de la doctrina de San Gregorio de Nisa sobre la Resurreccin
de Jesucristo), ScrTh 5 (1973) 789.
, La cristologa del In Canticum Canticorum de Gregorio de Nisa, in H. DrobnerCh. Klock
(dir), Studien zu Gregor von Nyssa und der Christlichen Sptantike, Leiden 1990, 173190.
, Notas sobre el lenguaje cristolgico de Gregorio de Nisa, ScrTh 35 (2003) 89112.
G. May, Die Chronologie des Lebens und der Werke des Gregor von Nyssa, in M. Harl (ed),
criture et culture philosophique dans la pense de Grgoire de Nysse, Leiden 1971, 5166.
C. McCambley, Against Fate by Gregory of Nyssa, GOTR 37 (1992) 309332.
, When (the Father) Will Subject All Things to (the Son), Then (the Son) Himself Will Be
subjected to him (the Father) who Subjects All Things to him (The Son).- A Treatise on First
Corinthians, 15, 18 by Saint Gregory of Nyssa, GOTR 28 (1983) 115.
A. Meis, El Ocultamiento de Dios en los Comentarios al Cantar de los Cantares de Gregorio de
Nisa y Pseudo-Dionisio Areopagita, StPatr 37 (2001) 194206.
A. Mhat, Apocatastase Origne, Clment dAlexandrie, Act. 3, 21, VigChr 10 (1956)
196214.
A. Meredith, The Pneumatology of the Cappadocian Fathers and the Creed of Constantinople,
IThQ 48 (1981) 196211.
J.R. Meyer, Clarifying the Filioque Formula Using Athanasiuss Doctrine of the Spirit of Christ,
Com(US) 27 (2000) 386405.
L. Mori, La divinit dello Spirito Santo in S. Gregorio di Nissa. Le operazioni divine. La santicazione in particolare, in Atti del Congresso Teologico Internazionale di Pneumatologia I, Roma
1983, 163180.
R. Moriarty, Human Owners, Human Slaves: Gregory of Nyssa, Hom. Eccl. 4, StPatr 27
(1993) 6269.
A. Mosshammer, Historical time and the apokatastasis according to Gregory of Nyssa, StPatr
27 (1991) 7093.
, Non-Being and Evil in Gregory of Nyssa, VigChr 44 (1990) 136167.
E.D. Moutsoulas, La pneumatologie du Contra Eunomium I, in L. Mateo-SecoJ.L. Bastero
(eds), El Contra Eunomium I en la produccin literaria de Gregorio de Nisa, Pamplona
1988, pp. 381390.
bibliography
209
, !" #$ %

, Theol(A) 55 (1984) 384
401.
, Essence et Energies de Dieu selon St. Grgoire de Nysse, StPatr 18 (1983) 517528.
E. Mhlenberg, Die philosophische Bildung Gregors von Nyssa in den Bchern Contra Eunomium, in M. Harl (ed.), criture et culture philosophique dans la pense de Grgoire de Nysse,
Leiden 1971, 230244.
A. Ojell, El telos escatolgico de la vida cristiana. La vida en Cristo segn San Gregorio de Nisa,
in C. Izquierdo et al. (eds), Escatologa y vida cristiana, XXII Simposio internacional
de teologa de la Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona 2002, pp. 353373.
A. Orbe, La procesin del Espritu Santo y el origen de Eva, Gr. 45 (1964) 103118.
M.A. Orphanos, The Procession of the Holy Spirit: according to Certain Greek Fathers, Theol(A)
50 (1979) 763778.
, The Procession of the Holy Spirit: according to Certain Greek Fathers, Theol(A) 51 (1980)
87107, 276299, 436461.
E.C.E. Owen, &', &'(# and allied words, JTS 35 (1934) 368380.
M. van Parys, Exgse et thologie trinitaire. Prov. 8, 22 chez les Pres Cappadociens, Irn.
43 (1970) 362379.
M. Pellegrino, Il platonismo di S. Gregorio Nisseno nel dialogo Intorno allanima e alla resurrezione, RFNS 30 (1938) 437474.
A. Penati Bernardini, La Trinit in Gregorio di Nissa, in LEpistola dei di Evagrio Pontico.
Temi, contesti, sviluppi, Atti del III Convegno del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la
Tradizione Alessandrina, a cura di Paolo Bettiolo, SEAug 72 (2000) 145152.
M.T.-L. Penido, Prlude grec la thorie Psychologique de la Trinit, RThom 45 (1939)
665674.
C. Plantinga, Gregory of Nyssa and the Social Analogy of the Trinity, Thom. 50 (1986)
325352.
J.R. Pouchet, La date de llection piscopale de saint Basile et celle de sa mort, RHE 87 (1992)
533.
G.L. Prestige, )*++ and )*+, in the Fathers, JThS 29 (1928) 242
252.
A. Quacquarelli, Lantropologia del martire nel panegirico del Nisseno a san Teodoro di Amasea,
in Arch e Telos. Lantropologia di Origene e di Gregorio di Nissa. Analisi storico-religiosa. Atti
del colloquio, Milano, 1719 maggio 1979. Pubbl. a cura di U. Bianchi con la coop.
di H. Crouzel. Universit Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano 1981, 217230.
K. Rahner, Der dreifaltige Gott als traszendenter Urgrund der Heilsgeschichte, in Mysterium Salutis
II, Einsiedeln 1967, pp. 317401.
M. Richard, Lintroduction du mot hypostase dans la thologie de lincarnation, MSR 2 (1945)
532, 24370.
P. Rodrguez, Omnia traham ad meipsum, Romana 13 (1991/2) 331342.
V. Rodzianko, Filioque in Patristic Thought, StPatr 2 (1957) 295308.
M. Ross, Apophatic Prayer as a Theological Model: Seeking Coordinates in the Ineffable: Notes for
a Quantum Theology, JLT 7 (1993) 325353.
J.R. Sachs, Apocatastasis in Patristic Theology, TS 54 (1993) 617640.
B. Salmona, Logos come trasparenza in Gregorio di Nissa, in H. DrobnerCh. Klock (dir),
Studien zu Gregor von Nyssa und der Christlichen Sptantike, Leiden 1990, pp. 165171.
J. Saward, Towards an Apophatic Anthropology, IThQ 41 (1974) 222234.
J.B. Schoemann, Gregors von Nyssa theologische Anthropologie als Bildtheologie, Schol. 18 (1943)
3153; 175200.
C. von Schnborn, La lettre 38 de saint Basile et le problme Christologique de liconoclasme,
RSPhTh 60 (1976) 446450.
, ber die richtige Fassung des dogmatischen Begriffs der Vergttlichung des Menschen FZPhTh
34 (1987) 347.
210
bibliography
C. Scouteris, The People of GodIts Unity and Its Glory: A Discussion of John 17. 1724
in the Light of Patristic Thought, GOTR 30 (1985) 399420.
, - . / 01'( 2 3 '##" '4'1 / (# ,
Theol(A) 40 (1969) 416429.
P.A. Sequeri, La nozione di persona nella sistematica trinitaria, Teol(M) 10 (1985) 2339.
B. Sesbo, Le procs contemporain de Chalcdoine, Bilan et perspectives, RSR 65 (1977)
4580.
O. Siniscalco, 5'#6# e 0'#1( nella tradizione della Grande Chiesa no ad
Ireneo, StPatr 3/1 (1961) 380396.
T. pidlk, Leternit e il tempo, la zo e il bios, problema dei Padri Cappadoci, Aug. 16 (1976)
107116.
A. Spira, Le temps dun homme selon Aristote et Grgoire de Nyssa, in Colloques internationaux
du CNRS, Paris 1984, pp. 283294.
Y. Spiteris, La conoscenza esperienziale di Dio e la teologia nella prospettiva orientale, Anton.
72 (1997) 365426.
G.C. Stead, Why Not Three Gods?: The Logic of Gregory of Nyssas Trinitarian Doctrine, in
H. Drobner Ch. Klock (dir), Studien zu Gregor von Nyssa und der Christlichen Sptantike,
Leiden 1990, pp. 149163.
D.F. Stramara, Gregory of Nyssa: An Ardent Abolitionist?, SVTQ 41 (1997) 3760.
, Gregory of Nyssa, Ad Graecos How It Is That We Say There Are Three Persons In The
Divinity But Do Not Say There Are Three Gods (To The Greeks: Concerning the Commonality
of Concepts), GOTR 41 (1996) 375391.
, Gregory of Nyssas Terminology for Trinitarian Perichoresis, VigChr 52 (1998) 257
263.
B. Studer, La foi en lEsprit Saint dans lglise Ancienne, in Mysterium Caritatis. Studien zur
Exegese und zur Trinittslehre in der Alten Kirche, Roma 1999, pp. 445463.
M.S. Troiano, I Cappadoci e la questione dellorigine dei nomi nella polemica contro Eunomio,
VetChr 17 (1980) 313346.
C. Tsirpanlis, The Concept of Universal Salvation in Saint Gregory of Nyssa, StPatr 17 (1982)
11311144.
L. Turcescu, The Concept of Divine Persons in Gregory of Nyssas To His Brother Peter, on the
Difference Between Ousia and Hypostasis, GOTR 42 (1997) 6382.
, Person versus Individual, and Other Modern Misreadings of Gregory of Nyssa, MoTh
18 (2002) 527539.
J.J. Verhees, Die
des Pneumas als Beweis fr seine Transzendenz in der Argumentation
des Gregor von Nyssa, OrChrP 45 (1979) 531.
H.J. von Vogt, Die Schrift Ex communibus notionibus des Gregor von Nyssa: bersetzung des
kritischen Textes mit Kommentar, ThQ 171 (1991) 204218.
T.G. WeinandyP. McPartlanS. Caldecott, Clarifying the Filioque: The CatholicOrthodox Dialogue, Com(US) 23 (1996) 354373.
L. Wickham, Homily IV, in S.G. Hall, Gregory of Nyssa: Homilies on Ecclesiastes, New
York 1993, pp. 177184.
R. Winling, La rsurrection du Christ comme principe explicatif et comme lment structurant dans
le Discours catchtique de Grgoire de Nysse, StPatr 22 (1990) 7480.
V. Zielinsky, Le mystre de Marie, source dunit, NRT 121 (1999) 7291.
J.D. Zizioulas, The Teaching in the 2nd Ecumenical Council on the Holy Spirit in Historical
and Ecumenical Perspective, in Atti del Congresso Teologico Internazionale di Pneumatologia I,
Roma 1983, 2954.
INDEX OF PERSONS
Ananias xxii
Alexander of Aphrodisias 42
Ambrose of Milan 150
Anastos, T.L. 52
Antioch 11, 118
Apollinaris 5, 24
Apostolopoulos, Ch. 144
Aranda, A. 154
Arecchi, T. 104
Ariccia 122
Aristotle 17, 26, 29, 41, 42, 140
Arnou, R. 15
Asnaghi, A. 36
Athanasius 15, 56, 154, 160, 178, 179,
180
Athos 45, 46
Augustine of Hippo 123, 150, 151,
157, 158, 182, 187
Ayres, L. xixiv, xxvii, 67, 69, 75,
149
Bailleux, E. 167
Bailly, A., 38, 177
Bals, D.L. 14, 15, 16, 18, 76, 114
Balthasar, H. von 9, 17, 36, 76, 102,
133, 179
Bardenhewer, O. 15, 169
Barlaam 46, 51
Barth, K. 118
Begzos, M.P. 95
Bergad, M.M. 124
Bernardi, J. xxii
Bethlehem 26, 85
Blass, F. 186
Blum, W. 85
Bobrinskoy, B. 155, 187
Bolotov, B. 150, 151, 184
Botte, B. 187
Bouchet, J.R. 24, 65
Bourassa, F. 118
Brightman, R.S 96
Brown, R.E. 186
Bulgakov, S. 47
Cahill, J.B. xxvii
Caldarelli, G. 159, 160
Canvet, M. xvi, 18, 19, 171
Caspar, Ph. 18, 171
Celada, G. 26
Chn, J. xxix
Clement of Alexandria 117
Clment, O. 47, 48, 49, 87, 117, 187
Coakley, S. xi, xii, xxvii, 13, 41, 69, 75,
94, 199
Collins, P.M. 157
Colombo, G. xxxii
Congar, Y. 46, 50, 51, 151, 155, 159, 183
Constantine V 121
Corsini, E. 7, 139
Cyril of Alexandria 51, 59, 162
Dal Toso, G. 76
Danilou, J. xixxxiii, xxv, xxviii, 11,
15, 29, 33, 39, 43, 52, 62, 76, 77, 81,
84, 85, 89, 90, 92, 94, 102, 108, 117,
118, 119, 122, 124, 125, 132, 133,
136, 138, 140, 142, 144, 151, 152,
153, 190, 199, 200
Dennis, T.J. 124
Desalvo, Cl. 124
Didymus 56
Dillon, J. 178
Dionysius of Rome 149, 180
Dostoievskij, F. 36
Downing, J. K. xxv
Drobner, H. xx, xxiii, 4, 32, 66, 91,
140, 143
Duclow, D.F. 146
Dnzl, F. xxvii
Elm, S. 124
Eunomius xxixxxxi, 4, 5, 7, 14, 15,
19, 23, 32, 33, 40, 41, 42, 52, 57, 60,
65, 81, 98103, 106, 111, 114, 149,
164, 168, 181, 195
Fedwick, P. xx
Ferguson, E. 124
Florovsky, G. 76
Forte, B. 142, 144, 184, 185
Gath, J. 76
Galenus 42, 86
Garrigues, J. xxix, 31, 52, 97, 145, 149,
150, 157, 161, 162, 163, 180, 185, 186
Gemeinhardt, P. 150
212
index of persons
Gomes de Castro, M. 15, 154, 159,

160, 161
Gonzlez, S. 15, 56, 57, 58, 63, 66, 67
Gregorios, P.M. 124, 165
Gregory Nazianzen xiv, xxv, 59, 98,
123, 152, 155, 161, 164, 169, 174, 178
Gregory Palamas xxx, 38, 39, 43,
4552, 194
Guardini, R. 137, 169
Habra, G. 46
Halleux , A. de xii, xxx, 38, 45, 47, 48,
50, 164, 165, 167, 168, 173, 178, 182
Hanson, R.P.C. xx
Harnack, A. 27
Harrison, N. 75
Haykin, M.A.G. 153
Helladius 152
Hilary of Poitiers 150
Holl, K. 4, 15, 183, 187
Houdret, J.Ph. xxix, 43
Hbner, R. xx, xxv, 11, 16, 151
Ibez, J. 120
Ireneus of Lyon 56, 87, 199
Isaye, G. 56, 63
Ivnka, E. von 15, 52
Jaeger, W. ix, xiv, xxx, xxxi, 142, 151,
152, 159
Jerusalem xx, xxii, 85, 86, 141
John Chrysostom 123
John Damascene 41, 169
Justin 86, 117, 118
Kees, R.J. xxx, xxxi
Klaghofer, W. 9
Krivocheine, B. 12, 33, 34, 38, 43
Laird, M. 140, 141
Lallemand, A. 140
Larchet, J.C. 187
Leo the Great 150
Liberatus xxix
Lienhard, J.T. xxv, 187
Lossky, V. 44, 45, 47, 49, 74, 95, 105,
124, 142, 143, 145
Lozza, G. xxvii
Lubac, H. de 7, 198
Ludlow, M. 76, 77, 78, 91, 93, 94
Lynch, J.J. 120
Malevez, L. 15, 21
Mann, F. 22, 31, 145
Maraval, P. xix
Marcellus of Ancyra xxv, 187
Margerie, B. de 9
Marotta, E. 102
Marrou, H.-I. 133
Maspero, G. xiv, xix, 18, 24, 51, 61, 74,
94, 124, 125, 141, 142, 163, 182, 199
Mateo-Seco, L.F. xix, 18, 24, 72, 89,
91, 92, 120, 125, 126, 128, 140, 141,
142, 162, 163, 165, 181
Maximus the Confessor 39, 52, 77, 162
May, G. xx
Mhat, A. 87
Meis, A. 141
Mendoza, F 120
Meredith, A. 38, 165, 178
Methodius of Olympus 85, 168, 169
Meyendorff, J. 45, 46, 48, 50, 51, 52
Meyer, J.R. 49, 179
Milano, A. 119, 139
Mondin, B. 155
Mori, L. 56
Moriarty, R. 124
Mosshammer, A. 77, 92, 93
Mouroux, J. 70, 198
Moutsoulas, E.D. xix, xxii, 33, 38, 43,
52, 152, 162, 168, 169
Mozart, W.A. xv
Mhlenberg, E. 34, 137
Nag Hammadi 118
Nicea xi, 4, 129, 164
Nicephorus Callistus 121, 152
Ocriz, F. 13
Ojell, A. 84, 91
Orbe, A. 169
Origen 77, 78, 79, 84, 86, 87, 118, 119,
155, 164, 178, 182
Orphanos, M.A. 155, 157, 160, 169, 177
Otreius of Melitene 152
Owen, E.C.E. 99
Parys, M. van 36
Pellegrino, M. 77
Penati Bernardini, A. 104, 187
Penido, M.T.-L. 169
Philips, G. 45, 51
Photius 77, 150
Plantinga, C. 10
Plato 26, 38, 39, 46, 52, 132
Pochoshajew, I. 46
Podskalsky, G. 165
Porphyrius 17
213
index of persons
Pottier, B. xxviii, xxxi, 1619, 41, 52,
186
Prestige, G.L. xii, 16, 26, 59
Proclus of Constantinople xxix, 42
Quacquarelli, A.
67
Rahner, K. 51, 76, 159

Ratzinger, J. xvii, 74, 118, 128
Rgnon, Th. de xii, 15
Renczes, Ph.G. 39
Richard, M. 120
Ritter, A.M. 163
Rodrguez, P. 124, 169, 186
Rodzianko, V. 161, 185, 187
Ross, M. 95
Sabellius 154
Sachs, J.R. 83
Salmona, B. 110, 143
Saward, J. 96
Scheffczyk, L. xxix
Schoemann, J.B. 122
Schnborn, C. von 13, 60, 64, 65, 78,
121, 122
Scouteris, C. 120, 188
Sequeri, P.A. 118
Siniscalco, O. 86, 87
Solovv, V. 187
pidlk, T. 142
Spira, A. 136
Spiteris, Y. 45, 95
Staglian, A. 118
Stead, G.C. xx, 4, 66
Stramara, D.F. xx, 11, 59, 124
Studer, B. 174
Syrianus 42
Tatian 86, 88
Tertullian 119, 149, 151, 180, 186
Theodore Studite 121
Theodosius xxi, 152
Theophilus 86, 118
Thessalonica 46
Thomas Aquinas 37, 82, 140, 155, 162,
168, 182, 184, 186, 197
Tixeront, J. 27
Troiano, M.S. 100, 101, 103
Tsirpanlis, C. 90
Turcescu, L. 64, 119, 120, 122, 180
Verhees, J.J. 58
Vogt, H.J. von xx
Weinandy T.G. 159
Weiswurm, A.A. 102, 103, 140
Wickham, L. 124
Winling, R. 18
Wojtyda, K. 122
Yanguas Sanz, J.M.
178
Zachhuber, J. xiv, xxi, 5, 11, 13, 16, 17,

66, 67, 79, 80, 94
Ziegenaus, A. xxix
Ziegler, T. xx, xxi, xxviii, 12, 193
Zielinsky, V. 145
Zizioulas, J.D. 183
Zupi, M. 145
INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

Old Testament
59.15
59.17
83.7
83.10
103.8
103.24
119.4
147.5
40.5
88
88
88
xxiv, 30
67
xxiii
xxiii
113
114
Ecclesiastes
5.1
116
33, 128
81
Song of Salomon
1.3
6.9
138
72
Deuteronomy
6.4
32.4
xxiv
136
Isaiah
4.4
xxiv, 55
Job
8.1
33.25
80
80
Jeremiah
16.15
50.19
80
80
Psalms
23.8
58.4
59.13
59.14
xxiii
134
88
88
Wisdom
1.4
7.26
83
132, 164
Sirach
3.21
116
Genesis
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.11-12
1.26
2.20
3.5
3.20
9.25
18.25
101
103
103
84
9, 123
102
29
102
87
55
Exodus
3.14
10.22
New Testament
Matthew
5.7
5.8
5.9
9.4
11.16
12.28
17.1112
19.14
68
35
70, 73
30
114
xxiii, 55
80
143
Mark
10.14
143
Luke
1.38
2.51
6.36
23.43
23.46
144
188
68
20
20
John
1.1
1.3
1.14
1.18
182, 186
57, 164
19, 189
31, 32, 97, 182
216
index of biblical references
5.22
5.29
8.42
10.30
10.38
13.15
14.6
14.9
15.26
16.27
16.28
17.5
17.6
17.21
17.22
17.23
17.26
18.25
19.28
20.22
xxiii, 55
83
161
68
59
131
69, 188
130
158.161
158
158
181, 189
128
59, 74, 181, 188, 195
72, 74, 181, 188, 195
68, 74, 181, 188, 195
128
xxiii
25
181, 189
Acts
2.33
2.36
3.20
3.21
5.3
7.55
11.26
23
23
80
80
xxiii, xxvii, 30
52
135
Romans
1.23
6.4
6.1723
8.9
8.11
8.12
11.16
11.29
11.33
11.34
11.36
xxiii
25
79
158, 159, 189
182
131
134
123
36
113
63
1 Corinthians
1.24
2.8
3.16
xxiii, 41
23
83
8.6
12.3
12.13
15.20
15.22
15.28
63
147
63
24
24
xxvi, 69, 187, 188,
190
2 Corinthians
3.13
3.18
6.16
185
136
83
Galatians
1.5
4.6
73
182
Ephesians
1.5
6.16
134
xxiii
Philippians
2.6
2.9
2.11
129
xxiii
23, 125
Colossians
1.15
1.16
132, 147
58
1 Timothy
4.10
4.1215
xxiv
xxiv
2 Timothy
4.18
73
Hebrews
1.3
6.16
13.21
164, 171
xxiii
73
1 Peter
2.22
83
2 Peter
1.4
xxiii

(Maspero, G.) Trinity and Man Gregory of Nyssa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Maspero, G.) Trinity and Man Gregory of Nyssa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trinity and Man

J. den Boeft J. van Oort W.L. Petersen

Trinity and Man

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Chapter One Nature and Action .........................................

Chapter Two Apophatism and Person .....................................

Chapter Three The Spirit and Unity ......................................

General Conclusions .................................................................... 193

Index of Persons .......................................................................... 211

INTRODUCTION TO THE TREATISE

I. Trinity and Man

introduction to the treatise

According to these scholars it would be necessary to surpass the

introduction to the treatise

The interpretive proposal introduced by these authors thus appears

Cfr. L. Ayres, Not Three People . . ., p. 446.

introduction to the treatise

introduction to the treatise

introduction to the treatise

introduction to the treatise

introduction to the treatise

while at the same time being a critical analysis of ultimate theological

introduction to the treatise

introduction to the treatise

autonomy, its principle defender. To this period would belong for

introduction to the treatise

as they tie the AdAbl to the theological discussions in reference to the

introduction to the treatise

to say that: and it is in this that the Ad Ablabium merits to be seen as

introduction to the treatise

introduction to the treatise

introduction to the treatise

introduction to the treatise

C  (47, 20) only in InIllud (GNO III/2 26, 8).

introduction to the treatise

? .;2 @ 0 H, (54, 13) parallel to 8

introduction to the treatise

of DeVitaMo (I, 2, 56): Danilou deduces that this last expression of

Cfr. J. Danilou, Grgoire de Nysse. La vie de Mose, SC 1, Paris 1968, p. 47, n. 1.

introduction to the treatise

introduction to the treatise

dedicated to Palamite theology and its relationship to patristic thought.

introduction to the treatise

there is a systematic coherence in his thought.53 For this reason it is

introduction to the treatise

a pre-existing being in the intra-Trinitarian immanence. In both cases,

Cfr. G. Colombo, Teologia Sacramentaria, Milan 1997, p. 63.

NATURE AND ACTION

Cfr. AdAbl, GNO III/1, 37, 111.

      , 

We are before a linguistic imprecision, since in fact there is but one

Cfr. ibidem, 38, 1939, 7.

nature and action

The central point in the argument is that man is constituted by that

; #   @, A

Hypostasis is the source of plural predication. Nature is one and remains

   #  91  , J  &'   #4 

nature and action

difcult to accept the 5

nature and action

Commenting this passage of the DeHom and placing it in relation with

Cfr. CE I, GNO I, 88.

Cfr. CE I, GNO I, 199.

C (47, 20) only in InIllud (GNO III/2 26, 8).

? .;2 @ 0 H, (54, 13) parallel to 8

,

; # @, A

# 91 , J &' #4

difcult to accept the 5

The extensive aspect of +

#9CQ / ; #? (Antir, GNO III/1, 153, 2223).

##8 5 $* ; ;

It would seem that the conjunction (+

, & 1 &

This is all realized through the historical dimension of +

r! ' 2 ! ##! -&

A &' ; 5&$ 4C

/ "+ - , g * 9

# $ $

; $) ; #$ ; 6+ &

after having moved attention from the level of +

/ / ! .

the same nature as bricks (; $$' ; * # 69

`; $) -&! ;